Standing on the steps of the Guildhall, he addressed passers-by with an excerpt from former Prime Minister Churchill's book The River War, written in 1899 while he was a British army officer in the Sudan.

Police were called after complaints from members of the public, and the 50-year-old, from Dorset, was told to disperse but failed to do so.

A spokesman for Hampshire Constabulary said: “He was further arrested on suspicion of religious or racial harassment.

“He has been bailed pending further enquiries to report back to police on May 24.”

He is one of three Liberty GB candidates standing to represent the South East as MEPs.

His party's six-point manifesto argues for a “rejection of the notion of Britain as a global no-man's land upon which any of the world's teeming millions may lay claim” and the upholding of “Christian ethics and Western civilization”.

Defending his actions, Mr Weston said: “I thought there was no point in competing with UKIP in terms of talking about the European Union, so I would talk to the people of Winchester about Islam.”

Comments

skeptik
6:32am Mon 28 Apr 14

Whilst I would not wish to align with many of today's politicians be they extreme or mainstream. I have not managed to accept the modern views on democracy - where you are a democrat if you agree with me or the mainstream. The most effective way of defeating extremism was to allow them to make a complete fools of themselves and having a better argument. However, being arrested for giving a history lesson on the speeches or writing of the late Lieutenant WS Churchill 4th Hussars in the Sudan appears on the face of it a tad odd.

Whilst I would not wish to align with many of today's politicians be they extreme or mainstream. I have not managed to accept the modern views on democracy - where you are a democrat if you agree with me or the mainstream. The most effective way of defeating extremism was to allow them to make a complete fools of themselves and having a better argument. However, being arrested for giving a history lesson on the speeches or writing of the late Lieutenant WS Churchill 4th Hussars in the Sudan appears on the face of it a tad odd.skeptik

Whilst I would not wish to align with many of today's politicians be they extreme or mainstream. I have not managed to accept the modern views on democracy - where you are a democrat if you agree with me or the mainstream. The most effective way of defeating extremism was to allow them to make a complete fools of themselves and having a better argument. However, being arrested for giving a history lesson on the speeches or writing of the late Lieutenant WS Churchill 4th Hussars in the Sudan appears on the face of it a tad odd.

Score: 63

bigfella777
6:33am Mon 28 Apr 14

They have no right to tell him to disperse, under what law? They can ask him to but he doesn't have to . it was proved in court that using a megaphone is legal.
When Police officers graduate they have to swear an oath to uphold the law. If they can't you what law they're upholding they are in contempt.
Either this work by Churchill is banned or its not.

They have no right to tell him to disperse, under what law? They can ask him to but he doesn't have to . it was proved in court that using a megaphone is legal.
When Police officers graduate they have to swear an oath to uphold the law. If they can't you what law they're upholding they are in contempt.
Either this work by Churchill is banned or its not.bigfella777

They have no right to tell him to disperse, under what law? They can ask him to but he doesn't have to . it was proved in court that using a megaphone is legal.
When Police officers graduate they have to swear an oath to uphold the law. If they can't you what law they're upholding they are in contempt.
Either this work by Churchill is banned or its not.

Score: 72

Norwegian Saint
6:44am Mon 28 Apr 14

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?Norwegian Saint

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

Score: 68

Orwell's Ghost
6:53am Mon 28 Apr 14

If election candidates are arrested for quoting Winston Churchill on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, we must then all ask ourselves how we allowed ourselves as free men and women in a so-called free country to get into such a state. We must also ask why Anjem Choudary is permitted to air his views while the police stand beside him to facilitate his freedom of speech. Could any politically correct appeaser please tell us which particular race Churchill is alleged to have harassed? The River War clearly comments on a belief, not a set of DNA. Freedom of Speech, buried under the gaze of Alfred The Great in Winchester 26th April 2014.

If election candidates are arrested for quoting Winston Churchill on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, we must then all ask ourselves how we allowed ourselves as free men and women in a so-called free country to get into such a state. We must also ask why Anjem Choudary is permitted to air his views while the police stand beside him to facilitate his freedom of speech. Could any politically correct appeaser please tell us which particular race Churchill is alleged to have harassed? The River War clearly comments on a belief, not a set of DNA. Freedom of Speech, buried under the gaze of Alfred The Great in Winchester 26th April 2014.Orwell's Ghost

If election candidates are arrested for quoting Winston Churchill on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, we must then all ask ourselves how we allowed ourselves as free men and women in a so-called free country to get into such a state. We must also ask why Anjem Choudary is permitted to air his views while the police stand beside him to facilitate his freedom of speech. Could any politically correct appeaser please tell us which particular race Churchill is alleged to have harassed? The River War clearly comments on a belief, not a set of DNA. Freedom of Speech, buried under the gaze of Alfred The Great in Winchester 26th April 2014.

Score: 110

Suntanned Snowman
7:12am Mon 28 Apr 14

It just proves what a parlous state Britain is in, when an Englishman in England can be arrested for quoting History's greatest Englishman!

It just proves what a parlous state Britain is in, when an Englishman in England can be arrested for quoting History's greatest Englishman!Suntanned Snowman

It just proves what a parlous state Britain is in, when an Englishman in England can be arrested for quoting History's greatest Englishman!

Score: 96

Totton Tim
7:30am Mon 28 Apr 14

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!Totton Tim

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Score: 89

Chipster
7:35am Mon 28 Apr 14

Whether you agree with his views or not the Police do appear to be somewhat heavy-handed here, after all he was "quoting" from a book by Winston Chuchill and does not appear to be a knuckle-dragger from the BNP!
I sometime feel our Police are fast becoming a political party in their own right, it also begs the question that if this had been for argument sake a Muslim would the boys in blue have been so keen to move in? Unlikely!
We pride ourselves on our freedoms but it seems this is slowly being eroded under the guise of political correctness, how often do you see, read and hear of groups advocating murder of our armed forces etc with no response from the authorities and alike? by the way, this is just one example before I'm labled a racist!
My fear is that sooner rather than later any view held that does not adhere to the latest "trendy diktat" will be treated as a crime and free thought let alone free speech will be a thing of the past!

Whether you agree with his views or not the Police do appear to be somewhat heavy-handed here, after all he was "quoting" from a book by Winston Chuchill and does not appear to be a knuckle-dragger from the BNP!
I sometime feel our Police are fast becoming a political party in their own right, it also begs the question that if this had been for argument sake a Muslim would the boys in blue have been so keen to move in? Unlikely!
We pride ourselves on our freedoms but it seems this is slowly being eroded under the guise of political correctness, how often do you see, read and hear of groups advocating murder of our armed forces etc with no response from the authorities and alike? by the way, this is just one example before I'm labled a racist!
My fear is that sooner rather than later any view held that does not adhere to the latest "trendy diktat" will be treated as a crime and free thought let alone free speech will be a thing of the past!Chipster

Whether you agree with his views or not the Police do appear to be somewhat heavy-handed here, after all he was "quoting" from a book by Winston Chuchill and does not appear to be a knuckle-dragger from the BNP!
I sometime feel our Police are fast becoming a political party in their own right, it also begs the question that if this had been for argument sake a Muslim would the boys in blue have been so keen to move in? Unlikely!
We pride ourselves on our freedoms but it seems this is slowly being eroded under the guise of political correctness, how often do you see, read and hear of groups advocating murder of our armed forces etc with no response from the authorities and alike? by the way, this is just one example before I'm labled a racist!
My fear is that sooner rather than later any view held that does not adhere to the latest "trendy diktat" will be treated as a crime and free thought let alone free speech will be a thing of the past!

Score: 61

bullet93
7:45am Mon 28 Apr 14

makes me sick how we cannot touch or even get close to the islam extremists when there trieing to intice more to join there terrorist organisation but as soon as we have speakers quoting from a legendary englishmans book gets arrested under what law and where was the harrasment not like he was outside a mosque and im sure in england we have a freedom of speech... as many have always said if the islamists dont like our laws our way of living and especially our history please feel free to go home well even pay your flights

makes me sick how we cannot touch or even get close to the islam extremists when there trieing to intice more to join there terrorist organisation but as soon as we have speakers quoting from a legendary englishmans book gets arrested under what law and where was the harrasment not like he was outside a mosque and im sure in england we have a freedom of speech... as many have always said if the islamists dont like our laws our way of living and especially our history please feel free to go home well even pay your flightsbullet93

makes me sick how we cannot touch or even get close to the islam extremists when there trieing to intice more to join there terrorist organisation but as soon as we have speakers quoting from a legendary englishmans book gets arrested under what law and where was the harrasment not like he was outside a mosque and im sure in england we have a freedom of speech... as many have always said if the islamists dont like our laws our way of living and especially our history please feel free to go home well even pay your flights

Score: 53

elvisimo
8:07am Mon 28 Apr 14

got him the publicity he so desperately seemed to want...

got him the publicity he so desperately seemed to want...elvisimo

got him the publicity he so desperately seemed to want...

Score: -11

Charlie Bucket
8:18am Mon 28 Apr 14

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

No.

[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote:
Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?[/p][/quote]No.Charlie Bucket

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

No.

Score: 19

Charlie Bucket
8:18am Mon 28 Apr 14

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

[quote][p][bold]Totton Tim[/bold] wrote:
Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is![/p][/quote]Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?Charlie Bucket

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

Score: 10

massimoosti
8:40am Mon 28 Apr 14

I do not support UKIP however it is very obvious that the powers that be are currently coordinating the media and relevant bodies in a campaign to slur and discredit them.

Perhaps because they are threatened ?

Such campaigns and media blackouts etc are common place but never so obvious.

I do not support UKIP however it is very obvious that the powers that be are currently coordinating the media and relevant bodies in a campaign to slur and discredit them.
Perhaps because they are threatened ?
Such campaigns and media blackouts etc are common place but never so obvious.massimoosti

I do not support UKIP however it is very obvious that the powers that be are currently coordinating the media and relevant bodies in a campaign to slur and discredit them.

Perhaps because they are threatened ?

Such campaigns and media blackouts etc are common place but never so obvious.

Score: 28

Orwell's Ghost
8:40am Mon 28 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Totton Tim[/bold] wrote:
Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is![/p][/quote]Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?[/p][/quote]So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?Orwell's Ghost

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

Score: 16

killared
8:56am Mon 28 Apr 14

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

No to steal oil yes !

[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote:
Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?[/p][/quote]No to steal oil yes !killared

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

No to steal oil yes !

Score: 11

jen1
9:02am Mon 28 Apr 14

Strange isn't it? Plenty of hard line Islamists are allowed to spew their hatred in public and even abuse British soldiers, just think of those walking fleabags chaudray and hamza to name a couple and I've no idea how to spell their names correctly and couldn't care less either.

The police should be ashamed of themselves.

Strange isn't it? Plenty of hard line Islamists are allowed to spew their hatred in public and even abuse British soldiers, just think of those walking fleabags chaudray and hamza to name a couple and I've no idea how to spell their names correctly and couldn't care less either.
The police should be ashamed of themselves.jen1

Strange isn't it? Plenty of hard line Islamists are allowed to spew their hatred in public and even abuse British soldiers, just think of those walking fleabags chaudray and hamza to name a couple and I've no idea how to spell their names correctly and couldn't care less either.

The police should be ashamed of themselves.

Score: 42

bigfella777
9:06am Mon 28 Apr 14

And how on earth can it be racial harassment ?

And how on earth can it be racial harassment ?bigfella777

And how on earth can it be racial harassment ?

Score: 32

skeptik
9:12am Mon 28 Apr 14

My first vote was in the city of Winchester many years ago. The folk who stood for parliament or local government would have to face hecklers - the true face of democracy, no scripted answers - those who gave answers to hecklers that had half a ring of truth survived - those who did not were out with the chaff. The police watched on as protectors of democracy not the uniform branch of politics. We have people 'parachuted in' and woe betide anyone questioning the party (whichever) party line. We have ACPO deciding what they will or will not do and this is a democracy?

My first vote was in the city of Winchester many years ago. The folk who stood for parliament or local government would have to face hecklers - the true face of democracy, no scripted answers - those who gave answers to hecklers that had half a ring of truth survived - those who did not were out with the chaff. The police watched on as protectors of democracy not the uniform branch of politics. We have people 'parachuted in' and woe betide anyone questioning the party (whichever) party line. We have ACPO deciding what they will or will not do and this is a democracy?skeptik

My first vote was in the city of Winchester many years ago. The folk who stood for parliament or local government would have to face hecklers - the true face of democracy, no scripted answers - those who gave answers to hecklers that had half a ring of truth survived - those who did not were out with the chaff. The police watched on as protectors of democracy not the uniform branch of politics. We have people 'parachuted in' and woe betide anyone questioning the party (whichever) party line. We have ACPO deciding what they will or will not do and this is a democracy?

Score: 27

elvisimo
9:13am Mon 28 Apr 14

Orwell's Ghost wrote…

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.

[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Totton Tim[/bold] wrote:
Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is![/p][/quote]Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?[/p][/quote]So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?[/p][/quote]because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.elvisimo

Orwell's Ghost wrote…

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.

Score: -25

eurogordi
9:20am Mon 28 Apr 14

True democracy requires an understanding that it is okay to express views that others may not disagree with. We should all be respected for the individual views we hold, without feeling threatened by the authorities.

Incidentally, if those who complained did so because they found Mr Weston's views "offensive", both them and the police should be reminded that the law has recently changed to remove the word "offensive".

True democracy requires an understanding that it is okay to express views that others may not disagree with. We should all be respected for the individual views we hold, without feeling threatened by the authorities.
Incidentally, if those who complained did so because they found Mr Weston's views "offensive", both them and the police should be reminded that the law has recently changed to remove the word "offensive".eurogordi

True democracy requires an understanding that it is okay to express views that others may not disagree with. We should all be respected for the individual views we hold, without feeling threatened by the authorities.

Incidentally, if those who complained did so because they found Mr Weston's views "offensive", both them and the police should be reminded that the law has recently changed to remove the word "offensive".

Score: 24

killared
9:24am Mon 28 Apr 14

jen1 wrote…

Strange isn't it? Plenty of hard line Islamists are allowed to spew their hatred in public and even abuse British soldiers, just think of those walking fleabags chaudray and hamza to name a couple and I've no idea how to spell their names correctly and couldn't care less either.

The police should be ashamed of themselves.

What about your local GP who might be a Muslim who pay taxes and a hard worker do you think he deserve to be curse, abuse or hear that drivel in the street after a long day at work after treating patient in your little village by a guy like that ? I agree with freedom of speech but I do not agree with hatred, Yes those crazy Muslim extremist should be jailed for what they doing preaching hate but don't you think that guy should be the bigger man and spread the word in the different way ?

[quote][p][bold]jen1[/bold] wrote:
Strange isn't it? Plenty of hard line Islamists are allowed to spew their hatred in public and even abuse British soldiers, just think of those walking fleabags chaudray and hamza to name a couple and I've no idea how to spell their names correctly and couldn't care less either.
The police should be ashamed of themselves.[/p][/quote]What about your local GP who might be a Muslim who pay taxes and a hard worker do you think he deserve to be curse, abuse or hear that drivel in the street after a long day at work after treating patient in your little village by a guy like that ? I agree with freedom of speech but I do not agree with hatred, Yes those crazy Muslim extremist should be jailed for what they doing preaching hate but don't you think that guy should be the bigger man and spread the word in the different way ?killared

jen1 wrote…

Strange isn't it? Plenty of hard line Islamists are allowed to spew their hatred in public and even abuse British soldiers, just think of those walking fleabags chaudray and hamza to name a couple and I've no idea how to spell their names correctly and couldn't care less either.

The police should be ashamed of themselves.

What about your local GP who might be a Muslim who pay taxes and a hard worker do you think he deserve to be curse, abuse or hear that drivel in the street after a long day at work after treating patient in your little village by a guy like that ? I agree with freedom of speech but I do not agree with hatred, Yes those crazy Muslim extremist should be jailed for what they doing preaching hate but don't you think that guy should be the bigger man and spread the word in the different way ?

Score: -27

On the inside
10:22am Mon 28 Apr 14

He is a Christian so his only agenda will be to attack and denigrate other faiths. If you buy the god stuff how can you possibly accept there is more than one of them. Using 100 years old texts is pretty modern for people who usually only accept the existence of one book.

He is a Christian so his only agenda will be to attack and denigrate other faiths. If you buy the god stuff how can you possibly accept there is more than one of them. Using 100 years old texts is pretty modern for people who usually only accept the existence of one book.On the inside

He is a Christian so his only agenda will be to attack and denigrate other faiths. If you buy the god stuff how can you possibly accept there is more than one of them. Using 100 years old texts is pretty modern for people who usually only accept the existence of one book.

Score: -23

Orwell's Ghost
10:23am Mon 28 Apr 14

elvisimo wrote…

Orwell's Ghost wrote…

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.

Society clearly has changed, We are now no longer free to express our opinions without State intervention to suppress anything them deem inappropriate for us to hear. To silence debate leads us down the road to dictatorship, the very thing Churchill fought against. Your demand to censor opinions you disagree with marks you down as intolerant.

[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Totton Tim[/bold] wrote:
Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is![/p][/quote]Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?[/p][/quote]So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?[/p][/quote]because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.[/p][/quote]Society clearly has changed, We are now no longer free to express our opinions without State intervention to suppress anything them deem inappropriate for us to hear. To silence debate leads us down the road to dictatorship, the very thing Churchill fought against. Your demand to censor opinions you disagree with marks you down as intolerant.Orwell's Ghost

elvisimo wrote…

Orwell's Ghost wrote…

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.

Society clearly has changed, We are now no longer free to express our opinions without State intervention to suppress anything them deem inappropriate for us to hear. To silence debate leads us down the road to dictatorship, the very thing Churchill fought against. Your demand to censor opinions you disagree with marks you down as intolerant.

Score: 29

normal1965
10:29am Mon 28 Apr 14

he was quoting a book.plus have you heard what islam has been saying about the west.i dont see them getting arrested,its a liberty.the freedom of speech has gone from england,boo

he was quoting a book.plus have you heard what islam has been saying about the west.i dont see them getting arrested,its a liberty.the freedom of speech has gone from england,boonormal1965

he was quoting a book.plus have you heard what islam has been saying about the west.i dont see them getting arrested,its a liberty.the freedom of speech has gone from england,boo

Score: 32

good-gosh
10:44am Mon 28 Apr 14

I allowed my children free speech so long as they went about it quietly.

I allowed my children free speech so long as they went about it quietly.good-gosh

I allowed my children free speech so long as they went about it quietly.

Score: 6

thesouth
10:55am Mon 28 Apr 14

bigfella777 wrote…

They have no right to tell him to disperse, under what law? They can ask him to but he doesn't have to . it was proved in court that using a megaphone is legal.
When Police officers graduate they have to swear an oath to uphold the law. If they can't you what law they're upholding they are in contempt.
Either this work by Churchill is banned or its not.

You clearly know so little about the law

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
They have no right to tell him to disperse, under what law? They can ask him to but he doesn't have to . it was proved in court that using a megaphone is legal.
When Police officers graduate they have to swear an oath to uphold the law. If they can't you what law they're upholding they are in contempt.
Either this work by Churchill is banned or its not.[/p][/quote]You clearly know so little about the lawthesouth

bigfella777 wrote…

They have no right to tell him to disperse, under what law? They can ask him to but he doesn't have to . it was proved in court that using a megaphone is legal.
When Police officers graduate they have to swear an oath to uphold the law. If they can't you what law they're upholding they are in contempt.
Either this work by Churchill is banned or its not.

You clearly know so little about the law

Score: -7

[deleted]
11:13am Mon 28 Apr 14

[deleted]

[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Totton Tim[/bold] wrote:
Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is![/p][/quote]Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?[/p][/quote]So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?[/p][/quote]because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.[/p][/quote]".... quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated...." - elvisomo
Out of date? Really?
i) "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog...”
We see that “fanatical frenzy” of Muslims almost every day on the news; whether in protests in Pakistan on on the streets of London. In fact the wider the Muslim mouths, and the more intense the “frenzy”, the more Islamic a Muslim thinks he is. It's a kind of I'm-more-Islamic-tha
n-thou competition many Muslims have with each other.
ii) “.... here is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”
Islam does not accept free will. Ask a Muslim. Everything is predestined by Allah and even every action and thought of a Muslim is too. That is the primary reason Churchill gives for the backwardness of Muslim countries. Nonetheless, I would say that Islam in its entirety leads to that “apathy” and backwardness: whether that be Islamic literalism, rule-fixation, the distrust of anything not sanctified by Muhammad and the Koran, the hatred of change or progress, etc.
iii) “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”
Muhammad himself had 11 wives at one point. He also married a six-year-old and consummated that marriage when she was 9. Muhammad also had many concubines and sex slaves. Slavery too was practiced by Muhammad and has been a part of Islam ever since. It still exists in parts of the Arab world and even beyond (e.g., in Islamic Sudan – the place Churchill primarily had in mind).
iv) “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”
Now millions, not “thousands”, of Muslims are the “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith”. They are now called jihadists. They were also often called “holy warriors”. Many British “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith” went to wage jihad in Syria. 500, at the very least, are expected to return to the UK any time soon. (According to the BBC, there were more than 200 British Muslims fighting in Syria seven months ago.)
v) “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."
Those two Churchillian statements are the most prescient of all.
We got rid of both communism and Nazism. And today “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam.R.S.Peters

elvisimo wrote…

Orwell's Ghost wrote…

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.

".... quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated...." - elvisomo

Out of date? Really?

i) "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog...”

We see that “fanatical frenzy” of Muslims almost every day on the news; whether in protests in Pakistan on on the streets of London. In fact the wider the Muslim mouths, and the more intense the “frenzy”, the more Islamic a Muslim thinks he is. It's a kind of I'm-more-Islamic-tha
n-thou competition many Muslims have with each other.

ii) “.... here is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”

Islam does not accept free will. Ask a Muslim. Everything is predestined by Allah and even every action and thought of a Muslim is too. That is the primary reason Churchill gives for the backwardness of Muslim countries. Nonetheless, I would say that Islam in its entirety leads to that “apathy” and backwardness: whether that be Islamic literalism, rule-fixation, the distrust of anything not sanctified by Muhammad and the Koran, the hatred of change or progress, etc.

iii) “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”

Muhammad himself had 11 wives at one point. He also married a six-year-old and consummated that marriage when she was 9. Muhammad also had many concubines and sex slaves. Slavery too was practiced by Muhammad and has been a part of Islam ever since. It still exists in parts of the Arab world and even beyond (e.g., in Islamic Sudan – the place Churchill primarily had in mind).

iv) “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”

Now millions, not “thousands”, of Muslims are the “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith”. They are now called jihadists. They were also often called “holy warriors”. Many British “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith” went to wage jihad in Syria. 500, at the very least, are expected to return to the UK any time soon. (According to the BBC, there were more than 200 British Muslims fighting in Syria seven months ago.)

v) “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

Those two Churchillian statements are the most prescient of all.

We got rid of both communism and Nazism. And today “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam.

Score: 22

R.S.Peters
11:18am Mon 28 Apr 14

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

Yes, but millions of Muslims don't want free speech.

Iraq's Shia Muslims primarily wanted to substitute Sunni power with Shia power. Freedom of speech in Iraq is a foreign concept. Imposing democracy of such Muslim states is like imposing the consumption of beer on cows.

[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote:
Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?[/p][/quote]Yes, but millions of Muslims don't want free speech.
Iraq's Shia Muslims primarily wanted to substitute Sunni power with Shia power. Freedom of speech in Iraq is a foreign concept. Imposing democracy of such Muslim states is like imposing the consumption of beer on cows.R.S.Peters

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

Yes, but millions of Muslims don't want free speech.

Iraq's Shia Muslims primarily wanted to substitute Sunni power with Shia power. Freedom of speech in Iraq is a foreign concept. Imposing democracy of such Muslim states is like imposing the consumption of beer on cows.

Score: 14

R.S.Peters
11:23am Mon 28 Apr 14

On the inside wrote…

He is a Christian so his only agenda will be to attack and denigrate other faiths. If you buy the god stuff how can you possibly accept there is more than one of them. Using 100 years old texts is pretty modern for people who usually only accept the existence of one book.

Is that why Paul Weston is not on record, ever, of criticising Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. He has NEVER criticised any other religion.

To say that someone has "only has one agenda" is simple-minded and reductionist. Unless you only have one agenda - criticising religion or Christians.

[quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote:
He is a Christian so his only agenda will be to attack and denigrate other faiths. If you buy the god stuff how can you possibly accept there is more than one of them. Using 100 years old texts is pretty modern for people who usually only accept the existence of one book.[/p][/quote]Is that why Paul Weston is not on record, ever, of criticising Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. He has NEVER criticised any other religion.
To say that someone has "only has one agenda" is simple-minded and reductionist. Unless you only have one agenda - criticising religion or Christians.R.S.Peters

On the inside wrote…

He is a Christian so his only agenda will be to attack and denigrate other faiths. If you buy the god stuff how can you possibly accept there is more than one of them. Using 100 years old texts is pretty modern for people who usually only accept the existence of one book.

Is that why Paul Weston is not on record, ever, of criticising Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. He has NEVER criticised any other religion.

To say that someone has "only has one agenda" is simple-minded and reductionist. Unless you only have one agenda - criticising religion or Christians.

Score: 20

southy
11:45am Mon 28 Apr 14

Read up on MKUltra how things are done to brainwash the public on mass and this as been going on since the early 1960's started in the USA and now is done globally scale

Read up on MKUltra how things are done to brainwash the public on mass and this as been going on since the early 1960's started in the USA and now is done globally scalesouthy

Read up on MKUltra how things are done to brainwash the public on mass and this as been going on since the early 1960's started in the USA and now is done globally scale

Score: -1

bigfella777
11:53am Mon 28 Apr 14

R.S.Peters wrote…

elvisimo wrote…

Orwell's Ghost wrote…

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.

".... quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated...." - elvisomo

Out of date? Really?

i) "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog...”

We see that “fanatical frenzy” of Muslims almost every day on the news; whether in protests in Pakistan on on the streets of London. In fact the wider the Muslim mouths, and the more intense the “frenzy”, the more Islamic a Muslim thinks he is. It's a kind of I'm-more-Islamic-tha

n-thou competition many Muslims have with each other.

ii) “.... here is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”

Islam does not accept free will. Ask a Muslim. Everything is predestined by Allah and even every action and thought of a Muslim is too. That is the primary reason Churchill gives for the backwardness of Muslim countries. Nonetheless, I would say that Islam in its entirety leads to that “apathy” and backwardness: whether that be Islamic literalism, rule-fixation, the distrust of anything not sanctified by Muhammad and the Koran, the hatred of change or progress, etc.

iii) “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”

Muhammad himself had 11 wives at one point. He also married a six-year-old and consummated that marriage when she was 9. Muhammad also had many concubines and sex slaves. Slavery too was practiced by Muhammad and has been a part of Islam ever since. It still exists in parts of the Arab world and even beyond (e.g., in Islamic Sudan – the place Churchill primarily had in mind).

iv) “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”

Now millions, not “thousands”, of Muslims are the “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith”. They are now called jihadists. They were also often called “holy warriors”. Many British “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith” went to wage jihad in Syria. 500, at the very least, are expected to return to the UK any time soon. (According to the BBC, there were more than 200 British Muslims fighting in Syria seven months ago.)

v) “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

Those two Churchillian statements are the most prescient of all.

We got rid of both communism and Nazism. And today “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam.

Absolute twoddle, I am friends with Muslims, I work with Muslims never met friendlier people in my life. There are radical groups in all religions

[quote][p][bold]R.S.Peters[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Totton Tim[/bold] wrote:
Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is![/p][/quote]Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?[/p][/quote]So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?[/p][/quote]because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.[/p][/quote]".... quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated...." - elvisomo
Out of date? Really?
i) "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog...”
We see that “fanatical frenzy” of Muslims almost every day on the news; whether in protests in Pakistan on on the streets of London. In fact the wider the Muslim mouths, and the more intense the “frenzy”, the more Islamic a Muslim thinks he is. It's a kind of I'm-more-Islamic-tha
n-thou competition many Muslims have with each other.
ii) “.... here is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”
Islam does not accept free will. Ask a Muslim. Everything is predestined by Allah and even every action and thought of a Muslim is too. That is the primary reason Churchill gives for the backwardness of Muslim countries. Nonetheless, I would say that Islam in its entirety leads to that “apathy” and backwardness: whether that be Islamic literalism, rule-fixation, the distrust of anything not sanctified by Muhammad and the Koran, the hatred of change or progress, etc.
iii) “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”
Muhammad himself had 11 wives at one point. He also married a six-year-old and consummated that marriage when she was 9. Muhammad also had many concubines and sex slaves. Slavery too was practiced by Muhammad and has been a part of Islam ever since. It still exists in parts of the Arab world and even beyond (e.g., in Islamic Sudan – the place Churchill primarily had in mind).
iv) “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”
Now millions, not “thousands”, of Muslims are the “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith”. They are now called jihadists. They were also often called “holy warriors”. Many British “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith” went to wage jihad in Syria. 500, at the very least, are expected to return to the UK any time soon. (According to the BBC, there were more than 200 British Muslims fighting in Syria seven months ago.)
v) “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."
Those two Churchillian statements are the most prescient of all.
We got rid of both communism and Nazism. And today “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam.[/p][/quote]Absolute twoddle, I am friends with Muslims, I work with Muslims never met friendlier people in my life. There are radical groups in all religionsbigfella777

R.S.Peters wrote…

elvisimo wrote…

Orwell's Ghost wrote…

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.

".... quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated...." - elvisomo

Out of date? Really?

i) "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog...”

We see that “fanatical frenzy” of Muslims almost every day on the news; whether in protests in Pakistan on on the streets of London. In fact the wider the Muslim mouths, and the more intense the “frenzy”, the more Islamic a Muslim thinks he is. It's a kind of I'm-more-Islamic-tha

n-thou competition many Muslims have with each other.

ii) “.... here is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”

Islam does not accept free will. Ask a Muslim. Everything is predestined by Allah and even every action and thought of a Muslim is too. That is the primary reason Churchill gives for the backwardness of Muslim countries. Nonetheless, I would say that Islam in its entirety leads to that “apathy” and backwardness: whether that be Islamic literalism, rule-fixation, the distrust of anything not sanctified by Muhammad and the Koran, the hatred of change or progress, etc.

iii) “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”

Muhammad himself had 11 wives at one point. He also married a six-year-old and consummated that marriage when she was 9. Muhammad also had many concubines and sex slaves. Slavery too was practiced by Muhammad and has been a part of Islam ever since. It still exists in parts of the Arab world and even beyond (e.g., in Islamic Sudan – the place Churchill primarily had in mind).

iv) “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”

Now millions, not “thousands”, of Muslims are the “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith”. They are now called jihadists. They were also often called “holy warriors”. Many British “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith” went to wage jihad in Syria. 500, at the very least, are expected to return to the UK any time soon. (According to the BBC, there were more than 200 British Muslims fighting in Syria seven months ago.)

v) “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

Those two Churchillian statements are the most prescient of all.

We got rid of both communism and Nazism. And today “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam.

Absolute twoddle, I am friends with Muslims, I work with Muslims never met friendlier people in my life. There are radical groups in all religions

Score: -22

killared
12:17pm Mon 28 Apr 14

bigfella777 wrote…

R.S.Peters wrote…

elvisimo wrote…

Orwell's Ghost wrote…

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.

".... quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated...." - elvisomo

Out of date? Really?

i) "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog...”

We see that “fanatical frenzy” of Muslims almost every day on the news; whether in protests in Pakistan on on the streets of London. In fact the wider the Muslim mouths, and the more intense the “frenzy”, the more Islamic a Muslim thinks he is. It's a kind of I'm-more-Islamic-tha

n-thou competition many Muslims have with each other.

ii) “.... here is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”

Islam does not accept free will. Ask a Muslim. Everything is predestined by Allah and even every action and thought of a Muslim is too. That is the primary reason Churchill gives for the backwardness of Muslim countries. Nonetheless, I would say that Islam in its entirety leads to that “apathy” and backwardness: whether that be Islamic literalism, rule-fixation, the distrust of anything not sanctified by Muhammad and the Koran, the hatred of change or progress, etc.

iii) “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”

Muhammad himself had 11 wives at one point. He also married a six-year-old and consummated that marriage when she was 9. Muhammad also had many concubines and sex slaves. Slavery too was practiced by Muhammad and has been a part of Islam ever since. It still exists in parts of the Arab world and even beyond (e.g., in Islamic Sudan – the place Churchill primarily had in mind).

iv) “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”

Now millions, not “thousands”, of Muslims are the “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith”. They are now called jihadists. They were also often called “holy warriors”. Many British “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith” went to wage jihad in Syria. 500, at the very least, are expected to return to the UK any time soon. (According to the BBC, there were more than 200 British Muslims fighting in Syria seven months ago.)

v) “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

Those two Churchillian statements are the most prescient of all.

We got rid of both communism and Nazism. And today “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam.

Absolute twoddle, I am friends with Muslims, I work with Muslims never met friendlier people in my life. There are radical groups in all religions

Same I have a few Muslims friends they are nice people, very respectful they even invited me to their Aid el kebir celebration " end of fasting ", You are so right there are radical group in all religions ! What about that UKIP councillor who blame floods on gay marriage that man is Christian and radical and Crazy !!!

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]R.S.Peters[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Totton Tim[/bold] wrote:
Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is![/p][/quote]Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?[/p][/quote]So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?[/p][/quote]because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.[/p][/quote]".... quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated...." - elvisomo
Out of date? Really?
i) "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog...”
We see that “fanatical frenzy” of Muslims almost every day on the news; whether in protests in Pakistan on on the streets of London. In fact the wider the Muslim mouths, and the more intense the “frenzy”, the more Islamic a Muslim thinks he is. It's a kind of I'm-more-Islamic-tha
n-thou competition many Muslims have with each other.
ii) “.... here is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”
Islam does not accept free will. Ask a Muslim. Everything is predestined by Allah and even every action and thought of a Muslim is too. That is the primary reason Churchill gives for the backwardness of Muslim countries. Nonetheless, I would say that Islam in its entirety leads to that “apathy” and backwardness: whether that be Islamic literalism, rule-fixation, the distrust of anything not sanctified by Muhammad and the Koran, the hatred of change or progress, etc.
iii) “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”
Muhammad himself had 11 wives at one point. He also married a six-year-old and consummated that marriage when she was 9. Muhammad also had many concubines and sex slaves. Slavery too was practiced by Muhammad and has been a part of Islam ever since. It still exists in parts of the Arab world and even beyond (e.g., in Islamic Sudan – the place Churchill primarily had in mind).
iv) “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”
Now millions, not “thousands”, of Muslims are the “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith”. They are now called jihadists. They were also often called “holy warriors”. Many British “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith” went to wage jihad in Syria. 500, at the very least, are expected to return to the UK any time soon. (According to the BBC, there were more than 200 British Muslims fighting in Syria seven months ago.)
v) “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."
Those two Churchillian statements are the most prescient of all.
We got rid of both communism and Nazism. And today “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam.[/p][/quote]Absolute twoddle, I am friends with Muslims, I work with Muslims never met friendlier people in my life. There are radical groups in all religions[/p][/quote]Same I have a few Muslims friends they are nice people, very respectful they even invited me to their Aid el kebir celebration " end of fasting ", You are so right there are radical group in all religions ! What about that UKIP councillor who blame floods on gay marriage that man is Christian and radical and Crazy !!!killared

bigfella777 wrote…

R.S.Peters wrote…

elvisimo wrote…

Orwell's Ghost wrote…

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.

".... quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated...." - elvisomo

Out of date? Really?

i) "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog...”

We see that “fanatical frenzy” of Muslims almost every day on the news; whether in protests in Pakistan on on the streets of London. In fact the wider the Muslim mouths, and the more intense the “frenzy”, the more Islamic a Muslim thinks he is. It's a kind of I'm-more-Islamic-tha

n-thou competition many Muslims have with each other.

ii) “.... here is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”

Islam does not accept free will. Ask a Muslim. Everything is predestined by Allah and even every action and thought of a Muslim is too. That is the primary reason Churchill gives for the backwardness of Muslim countries. Nonetheless, I would say that Islam in its entirety leads to that “apathy” and backwardness: whether that be Islamic literalism, rule-fixation, the distrust of anything not sanctified by Muhammad and the Koran, the hatred of change or progress, etc.

iii) “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”

Muhammad himself had 11 wives at one point. He also married a six-year-old and consummated that marriage when she was 9. Muhammad also had many concubines and sex slaves. Slavery too was practiced by Muhammad and has been a part of Islam ever since. It still exists in parts of the Arab world and even beyond (e.g., in Islamic Sudan – the place Churchill primarily had in mind).

iv) “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”

Now millions, not “thousands”, of Muslims are the “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith”. They are now called jihadists. They were also often called “holy warriors”. Many British “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith” went to wage jihad in Syria. 500, at the very least, are expected to return to the UK any time soon. (According to the BBC, there were more than 200 British Muslims fighting in Syria seven months ago.)

v) “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

Those two Churchillian statements are the most prescient of all.

We got rid of both communism and Nazism. And today “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam.

Absolute twoddle, I am friends with Muslims, I work with Muslims never met friendlier people in my life. There are radical groups in all religions

Same I have a few Muslims friends they are nice people, very respectful they even invited me to their Aid el kebir celebration " end of fasting ", You are so right there are radical group in all religions ! What about that UKIP councillor who blame floods on gay marriage that man is Christian and radical and Crazy !!!

Score: -18

Shoong
12:23pm Mon 28 Apr 14

southy wrote…

Read up on MKUltra how things are done to brainwash the public on mass and this as been going on since the early 1960's started in the USA and now is done globally scale

Indeed.

I'm sure after Mr Weston's little demo far right wingers are rising up on a global scale.

Interestingly, there is no such mention of this group in the article itself.

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
Read up on MKUltra how things are done to brainwash the public on mass and this as been going on since the early 1960's started in the USA and now is done globally scale[/p][/quote]Indeed.
I'm sure after Mr Weston's little demo far right wingers are rising up on a global scale.
Interestingly, there is no such mention of this group in the article itself.Shoong

southy wrote…

Read up on MKUltra how things are done to brainwash the public on mass and this as been going on since the early 1960's started in the USA and now is done globally scale

Indeed.

I'm sure after Mr Weston's little demo far right wingers are rising up on a global scale.

Interestingly, there is no such mention of this group in the article itself.

Score: 4

Torchie1
12:31pm Mon 28 Apr 14

bigfella777 wrote…

R.S.Peters wrote…

elvisimo wrote…

Orwell's Ghost wrote…

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.

".... quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated...." - elvisomo

Out of date? Really?

i) "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog...”

We see that “fanatical frenzy” of Muslims almost every day on the news; whether in protests in Pakistan on on the streets of London. In fact the wider the Muslim mouths, and the more intense the “frenzy”, the more Islamic a Muslim thinks he is. It's a kind of I'm-more-Islamic-tha

n-thou competition many Muslims have with each other.

ii) “.... here is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”

Islam does not accept free will. Ask a Muslim. Everything is predestined by Allah and even every action and thought of a Muslim is too. That is the primary reason Churchill gives for the backwardness of Muslim countries. Nonetheless, I would say that Islam in its entirety leads to that “apathy” and backwardness: whether that be Islamic literalism, rule-fixation, the distrust of anything not sanctified by Muhammad and the Koran, the hatred of change or progress, etc.

iii) “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”

Muhammad himself had 11 wives at one point. He also married a six-year-old and consummated that marriage when she was 9. Muhammad also had many concubines and sex slaves. Slavery too was practiced by Muhammad and has been a part of Islam ever since. It still exists in parts of the Arab world and even beyond (e.g., in Islamic Sudan – the place Churchill primarily had in mind).

iv) “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”

Now millions, not “thousands”, of Muslims are the “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith”. They are now called jihadists. They were also often called “holy warriors”. Many British “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith” went to wage jihad in Syria. 500, at the very least, are expected to return to the UK any time soon. (According to the BBC, there were more than 200 British Muslims fighting in Syria seven months ago.)

v) “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

Those two Churchillian statements are the most prescient of all.

We got rid of both communism and Nazism. And today “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam.

Absolute twoddle, I am friends with Muslims, I work with Muslims never met friendlier people in my life. There are radical groups in all religions

There are radical groups in all areas of life and you only have to look at the diatribes posted by the fervent Lycra brigade to see that. Meanwhile the Labour supporter groans with embarrassment about the rantings of our on board hard line socialist, moderate Muslims try to downplay the rantings of the extremists in their midst but the moderate elements aren't newsworthy so the nut jobs always get the column inches.

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]R.S.Peters[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Totton Tim[/bold] wrote:
Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is![/p][/quote]Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?[/p][/quote]So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?[/p][/quote]because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.[/p][/quote]".... quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated...." - elvisomo
Out of date? Really?
i) "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog...”
We see that “fanatical frenzy” of Muslims almost every day on the news; whether in protests in Pakistan on on the streets of London. In fact the wider the Muslim mouths, and the more intense the “frenzy”, the more Islamic a Muslim thinks he is. It's a kind of I'm-more-Islamic-tha
n-thou competition many Muslims have with each other.
ii) “.... here is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”
Islam does not accept free will. Ask a Muslim. Everything is predestined by Allah and even every action and thought of a Muslim is too. That is the primary reason Churchill gives for the backwardness of Muslim countries. Nonetheless, I would say that Islam in its entirety leads to that “apathy” and backwardness: whether that be Islamic literalism, rule-fixation, the distrust of anything not sanctified by Muhammad and the Koran, the hatred of change or progress, etc.
iii) “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”
Muhammad himself had 11 wives at one point. He also married a six-year-old and consummated that marriage when she was 9. Muhammad also had many concubines and sex slaves. Slavery too was practiced by Muhammad and has been a part of Islam ever since. It still exists in parts of the Arab world and even beyond (e.g., in Islamic Sudan – the place Churchill primarily had in mind).
iv) “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”
Now millions, not “thousands”, of Muslims are the “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith”. They are now called jihadists. They were also often called “holy warriors”. Many British “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith” went to wage jihad in Syria. 500, at the very least, are expected to return to the UK any time soon. (According to the BBC, there were more than 200 British Muslims fighting in Syria seven months ago.)
v) “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."
Those two Churchillian statements are the most prescient of all.
We got rid of both communism and Nazism. And today “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam.[/p][/quote]Absolute twoddle, I am friends with Muslims, I work with Muslims never met friendlier people in my life. There are radical groups in all religions[/p][/quote]There are radical groups in all areas of life and you only have to look at the diatribes posted by the fervent Lycra brigade to see that. Meanwhile the Labour supporter groans with embarrassment about the rantings of our on board hard line socialist, moderate Muslims try to downplay the rantings of the extremists in their midst but the moderate elements aren't newsworthy so the nut jobs always get the column inches.Torchie1

bigfella777 wrote…

R.S.Peters wrote…

elvisimo wrote…

Orwell's Ghost wrote…

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.

".... quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated...." - elvisomo

Out of date? Really?

i) "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog...”

We see that “fanatical frenzy” of Muslims almost every day on the news; whether in protests in Pakistan on on the streets of London. In fact the wider the Muslim mouths, and the more intense the “frenzy”, the more Islamic a Muslim thinks he is. It's a kind of I'm-more-Islamic-tha

n-thou competition many Muslims have with each other.

ii) “.... here is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”

Islam does not accept free will. Ask a Muslim. Everything is predestined by Allah and even every action and thought of a Muslim is too. That is the primary reason Churchill gives for the backwardness of Muslim countries. Nonetheless, I would say that Islam in its entirety leads to that “apathy” and backwardness: whether that be Islamic literalism, rule-fixation, the distrust of anything not sanctified by Muhammad and the Koran, the hatred of change or progress, etc.

iii) “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”

Muhammad himself had 11 wives at one point. He also married a six-year-old and consummated that marriage when she was 9. Muhammad also had many concubines and sex slaves. Slavery too was practiced by Muhammad and has been a part of Islam ever since. It still exists in parts of the Arab world and even beyond (e.g., in Islamic Sudan – the place Churchill primarily had in mind).

iv) “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”

Now millions, not “thousands”, of Muslims are the “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith”. They are now called jihadists. They were also often called “holy warriors”. Many British “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith” went to wage jihad in Syria. 500, at the very least, are expected to return to the UK any time soon. (According to the BBC, there were more than 200 British Muslims fighting in Syria seven months ago.)

v) “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

Those two Churchillian statements are the most prescient of all.

We got rid of both communism and Nazism. And today “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam.

Absolute twoddle, I am friends with Muslims, I work with Muslims never met friendlier people in my life. There are radical groups in all religions

There are radical groups in all areas of life and you only have to look at the diatribes posted by the fervent Lycra brigade to see that. Meanwhile the Labour supporter groans with embarrassment about the rantings of our on board hard line socialist, moderate Muslims try to downplay the rantings of the extremists in their midst but the moderate elements aren't newsworthy so the nut jobs always get the column inches.

Strange isn't it? Plenty of hard line Islamists are allowed to spew their hatred in public and even abuse British soldiers, just think of those walking fleabags chaudray and hamza to name a couple and I've no idea how to spell their names correctly and couldn't care less either.

The police should be ashamed of themselves.

What about your local GP who might be a Muslim who pay taxes and a hard worker do you think he deserve to be curse, abuse or hear that drivel in the street after a long day at work after treating patient in your little village by a guy like that ? I agree with freedom of speech but I do not agree with hatred, Yes those crazy Muslim extremist should be jailed for what they doing preaching hate but don't you think that guy should be the bigger man and spread the word in the different way ?

What a stupid post. My local GP is not muslim and I don't care much if they're offended. They should be doing more to eradicate the anti British and extremists, within their own community. We read in the news that there are hundreds of them heading out to Syria, to add to the chaos that's already there.

It seems to me that muslims must be pandered to at all costs sometimes and I've nothing against them particularly but dislike the notion that their rights and feelings must be considered at all costs and that the rest of us have to tiptoe around them. Whether you like it or not, Islam is causing a problem in this country and people don't like it and should speak out.

[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]jen1[/bold] wrote:
Strange isn't it? Plenty of hard line Islamists are allowed to spew their hatred in public and even abuse British soldiers, just think of those walking fleabags chaudray and hamza to name a couple and I've no idea how to spell their names correctly and couldn't care less either.
The police should be ashamed of themselves.[/p][/quote]What about your local GP who might be a Muslim who pay taxes and a hard worker do you think he deserve to be curse, abuse or hear that drivel in the street after a long day at work after treating patient in your little village by a guy like that ? I agree with freedom of speech but I do not agree with hatred, Yes those crazy Muslim extremist should be jailed for what they doing preaching hate but don't you think that guy should be the bigger man and spread the word in the different way ?[/p][/quote]What a stupid post. My local GP is not muslim and I don't care much if they're offended. They should be doing more to eradicate the anti British and extremists, within their own community. We read in the news that there are hundreds of them heading out to Syria, to add to the chaos that's already there.
It seems to me that muslims must be pandered to at all costs sometimes and I've nothing against them particularly but dislike the notion that their rights and feelings must be considered at all costs and that the rest of us have to tiptoe around them. Whether you like it or not, Islam is causing a problem in this country and people don't like it and should speak out.jen1

killared wrote…

jen1 wrote…

Strange isn't it? Plenty of hard line Islamists are allowed to spew their hatred in public and even abuse British soldiers, just think of those walking fleabags chaudray and hamza to name a couple and I've no idea how to spell their names correctly and couldn't care less either.

The police should be ashamed of themselves.

What about your local GP who might be a Muslim who pay taxes and a hard worker do you think he deserve to be curse, abuse or hear that drivel in the street after a long day at work after treating patient in your little village by a guy like that ? I agree with freedom of speech but I do not agree with hatred, Yes those crazy Muslim extremist should be jailed for what they doing preaching hate but don't you think that guy should be the bigger man and spread the word in the different way ?

What a stupid post. My local GP is not muslim and I don't care much if they're offended. They should be doing more to eradicate the anti British and extremists, within their own community. We read in the news that there are hundreds of them heading out to Syria, to add to the chaos that's already there.

It seems to me that muslims must be pandered to at all costs sometimes and I've nothing against them particularly but dislike the notion that their rights and feelings must be considered at all costs and that the rest of us have to tiptoe around them. Whether you like it or not, Islam is causing a problem in this country and people don't like it and should speak out.

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
Radical Methodists didn't cause 9/11. Radical Buddhists didn't cause 7/7. Radical Rastafarians didn't cause Beslan. Radical Salvation Army-ists didn't bomb Madrid. Radical Scientologists didn't bomb Kenya. Radical Jehovah's Witnesses didn't murder Pym Fortune and Theo Van Gogh. Radical atheists don't riot over cartoons. Even radical Marxists don't threaten to behead those who disagree with them. Radicalism isn't the problem. Can anyone else figure out what it is?[/p][/quote]Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally
I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?bigfella777

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Score: -15

Highfielder
3:29pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.

Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.Highfielder

Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
Radical Methodists didn't cause 9/11. Radical Buddhists didn't cause 7/7. Radical Rastafarians didn't cause Beslan. Radical Salvation Army-ists didn't bomb Madrid. Radical Scientologists didn't bomb Kenya. Radical Jehovah's Witnesses didn't murder Pym Fortune and Theo Van Gogh. Radical atheists don't riot over cartoons. Even radical Marxists don't threaten to behead those who disagree with them. Radicalism isn't the problem. Can anyone else figure out what it is?[/p][/quote]Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally
I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?[/p][/quote]Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.Orwell's Ghost

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.

I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.

[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
Radical Methodists didn't cause 9/11. Radical Buddhists didn't cause 7/7. Radical Rastafarians didn't cause Beslan. Radical Salvation Army-ists didn't bomb Madrid. Radical Scientologists didn't bomb Kenya. Radical Jehovah's Witnesses didn't murder Pym Fortune and Theo Van Gogh. Radical atheists don't riot over cartoons. Even radical Marxists don't threaten to behead those who disagree with them. Radicalism isn't the problem. Can anyone else figure out what it is?[/p][/quote]Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally
I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?[/p][/quote]Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.[/p][/quote]I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.bigfella777

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.

I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.

Score: -17

bigfella777
4:05pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Highfielder wrote…

Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.

Who are these reputable estimates from? Name them. It's quite coincidence that Churchill wrote this book in 1899 because that's exactly the same year that the first mosque was built in the UK as well so after 120 odd years Muslims only make up 4.8% of the UK population they really need to get a move on don't they to reach your estimates.

[quote][p][bold]Highfielder[/bold] wrote:
Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.[/p][/quote]Who are these reputable estimates from? Name them. It's quite coincidence that Churchill wrote this book in 1899 because that's exactly the same year that the first mosque was built in the UK as well so after 120 odd years Muslims only make up 4.8% of the UK population they really need to get a move on don't they to reach your estimates.bigfella777

Highfielder wrote…

Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.

Who are these reputable estimates from? Name them. It's quite coincidence that Churchill wrote this book in 1899 because that's exactly the same year that the first mosque was built in the UK as well so after 120 odd years Muslims only make up 4.8% of the UK population they really need to get a move on don't they to reach your estimates.

Score: -15

Gristy
4:06pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it!

Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it!Gristy

Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it!

Score: 14

bigfella777
4:13pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Gristy wrote…

Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it!

What like the indigenous population of South Africa subjected to apartheid ethnically cleansed from their homes, deprived of citizenship and refused political representation.
You had better hope they don't all rise up or you will be for the chop.

[quote][p][bold]Gristy[/bold] wrote:
Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it![/p][/quote]What like the indigenous population of South Africa subjected to apartheid ethnically cleansed from their homes, deprived of citizenship and refused political representation.
You had better hope they don't all rise up or you will be for the chop.bigfella777

Gristy wrote…

Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it!

What like the indigenous population of South Africa subjected to apartheid ethnically cleansed from their homes, deprived of citizenship and refused political representation.
You had better hope they don't all rise up or you will be for the chop.

Score: -11

killared
4:40pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Gristy wrote…

Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it!

funny you said that because your so called British friends who live in South Africa are foreigners in South Africa so why are they complaining when they are living in South Africa don't you think they should clean their own house before talking from far away ? They don't speak Afrikaans as far as we all established and they live and you live in the gated area where most of your neighbours are mainly white ! So please spare us because that's exactly how South African white or Black think about you a foreigners who live in South Africa and who don't speak Afrikaans just English ! Please clean you won house before talking from far away. I'm not angry but you are not in England anymore yes you might see what happen when you come here from XMAS but that's it !

[quote][p][bold]Gristy[/bold] wrote:
Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it![/p][/quote]funny you said that because your so called British friends who live in South Africa are foreigners in South Africa so why are they complaining when they are living in South Africa don't you think they should clean their own house before talking from far away ? They don't speak Afrikaans as far as we all established and they live and you live in the gated area where most of your neighbours are mainly white ! So please spare us because that's exactly how South African white or Black think about you a foreigners who live in South Africa and who don't speak Afrikaans just English ! Please clean you won house before talking from far away. I'm not angry but you are not in England anymore yes you might see what happen when you come here from XMAS but that's it !killared

Gristy wrote…

Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it!

funny you said that because your so called British friends who live in South Africa are foreigners in South Africa so why are they complaining when they are living in South Africa don't you think they should clean their own house before talking from far away ? They don't speak Afrikaans as far as we all established and they live and you live in the gated area where most of your neighbours are mainly white ! So please spare us because that's exactly how South African white or Black think about you a foreigners who live in South Africa and who don't speak Afrikaans just English ! Please clean you won house before talking from far away. I'm not angry but you are not in England anymore yes you might see what happen when you come here from XMAS but that's it !

Score: -7

TonyPrice
5:14pm Mon 28 Apr 14

So much for freedom a speech. The police officer responsible should be sacked with immediate effect and prosecuted for unlawfull arresting and innocent man.

So much for freedom a speech. The police officer responsible should be sacked with immediate effect and prosecuted for unlawfull arresting and innocent man.TonyPrice

So much for freedom a speech. The police officer responsible should be sacked with immediate effect and prosecuted for unlawfull arresting and innocent man.

Score: 11

southy
5:46pm Mon 28 Apr 14

TonyPrice wrote…

So much for freedom a speech. The police officer responsible should be sacked with immediate effect and prosecuted for unlawfull arresting and innocent man.

Like I said read up on MKUltra

[quote][p][bold]TonyPrice[/bold] wrote:
So much for freedom a speech. The police officer responsible should be sacked with immediate effect and prosecuted for unlawfull arresting and innocent man.[/p][/quote]Like I said read up on MKUltrasouthy

TonyPrice wrote…

So much for freedom a speech. The police officer responsible should be sacked with immediate effect and prosecuted for unlawfull arresting and innocent man.

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.

I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.

The invasion of the Christian and Jewish Holy Land came BEFORE the Crusades which were a counter-offensive to Muslim occupation. The British rule of India was supported by the Hindu kingdoms as our rule was far more benign than that of the Islamist Mughals. Regarding slavery, I condemn all forms of it and it is on record that the Muslim Prophet took slaves, owned slaves rewarded his followers with slaves. The Arabs, Ottomans and Corsair Berbers built their empires on the back of the enslaved peoples they took from their homes and ships. As for "blind and uneducated pursuits", I shall not respond to your slight on our partially-sighted community and your opinion of my education with insults, only facts.

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
Radical Methodists didn't cause 9/11. Radical Buddhists didn't cause 7/7. Radical Rastafarians didn't cause Beslan. Radical Salvation Army-ists didn't bomb Madrid. Radical Scientologists didn't bomb Kenya. Radical Jehovah's Witnesses didn't murder Pym Fortune and Theo Van Gogh. Radical atheists don't riot over cartoons. Even radical Marxists don't threaten to behead those who disagree with them. Radicalism isn't the problem. Can anyone else figure out what it is?[/p][/quote]Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally
I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?[/p][/quote]Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.[/p][/quote]I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.[/p][/quote]The invasion of the Christian and Jewish Holy Land came BEFORE the Crusades which were a counter-offensive to Muslim occupation. The British rule of India was supported by the Hindu kingdoms as our rule was far more benign than that of the Islamist Mughals. Regarding slavery, I condemn all forms of it and it is on record that the Muslim Prophet took slaves, owned slaves rewarded his followers with slaves. The Arabs, Ottomans and Corsair Berbers built their empires on the back of the enslaved peoples they took from their homes and ships. As for "blind and uneducated pursuits", I shall not respond to your slight on our partially-sighted community and your opinion of my education with insults, only facts.Orwell's Ghost

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.

I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.

The invasion of the Christian and Jewish Holy Land came BEFORE the Crusades which were a counter-offensive to Muslim occupation. The British rule of India was supported by the Hindu kingdoms as our rule was far more benign than that of the Islamist Mughals. Regarding slavery, I condemn all forms of it and it is on record that the Muslim Prophet took slaves, owned slaves rewarded his followers with slaves. The Arabs, Ottomans and Corsair Berbers built their empires on the back of the enslaved peoples they took from their homes and ships. As for "blind and uneducated pursuits", I shall not respond to your slight on our partially-sighted community and your opinion of my education with insults, only facts.

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.

I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.

The invasion of the Christian and Jewish Holy Land came BEFORE the Crusades which were a counter-offensive to Muslim occupation. The British rule of India was supported by the Hindu kingdoms as our rule was far more benign than that of the Islamist Mughals. Regarding slavery, I condemn all forms of it and it is on record that the Muslim Prophet took slaves, owned slaves rewarded his followers with slaves. The Arabs, Ottomans and Corsair Berbers built their empires on the back of the enslaved peoples they took from their homes and ships. As for "blind and uneducated pursuits", I shall not respond to your slight on our partially-sighted community and your opinion of my education with insults, only facts.

You have answered your own question now, if you quote history ours is no better than anybody elses, that is my point.

[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
Radical Methodists didn't cause 9/11. Radical Buddhists didn't cause 7/7. Radical Rastafarians didn't cause Beslan. Radical Salvation Army-ists didn't bomb Madrid. Radical Scientologists didn't bomb Kenya. Radical Jehovah's Witnesses didn't murder Pym Fortune and Theo Van Gogh. Radical atheists don't riot over cartoons. Even radical Marxists don't threaten to behead those who disagree with them. Radicalism isn't the problem. Can anyone else figure out what it is?[/p][/quote]Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally
I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?[/p][/quote]Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.[/p][/quote]I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.[/p][/quote]The invasion of the Christian and Jewish Holy Land came BEFORE the Crusades which were a counter-offensive to Muslim occupation. The British rule of India was supported by the Hindu kingdoms as our rule was far more benign than that of the Islamist Mughals. Regarding slavery, I condemn all forms of it and it is on record that the Muslim Prophet took slaves, owned slaves rewarded his followers with slaves. The Arabs, Ottomans and Corsair Berbers built their empires on the back of the enslaved peoples they took from their homes and ships. As for "blind and uneducated pursuits", I shall not respond to your slight on our partially-sighted community and your opinion of my education with insults, only facts.[/p][/quote]You have answered your own question now, if you quote history ours is no better than anybody elses, that is my point.bigfella777

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.

I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.

The invasion of the Christian and Jewish Holy Land came BEFORE the Crusades which were a counter-offensive to Muslim occupation. The British rule of India was supported by the Hindu kingdoms as our rule was far more benign than that of the Islamist Mughals. Regarding slavery, I condemn all forms of it and it is on record that the Muslim Prophet took slaves, owned slaves rewarded his followers with slaves. The Arabs, Ottomans and Corsair Berbers built their empires on the back of the enslaved peoples they took from their homes and ships. As for "blind and uneducated pursuits", I shall not respond to your slight on our partially-sighted community and your opinion of my education with insults, only facts.

You have answered your own question now, if you quote history ours is no better than anybody elses, that is my point.

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

But it was ok for saddam to do it yeah?

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
Radical Methodists didn't cause 9/11. Radical Buddhists didn't cause 7/7. Radical Rastafarians didn't cause Beslan. Radical Salvation Army-ists didn't bomb Madrid. Radical Scientologists didn't bomb Kenya. Radical Jehovah's Witnesses didn't murder Pym Fortune and Theo Van Gogh. Radical atheists don't riot over cartoons. Even radical Marxists don't threaten to behead those who disagree with them. Radicalism isn't the problem. Can anyone else figure out what it is?[/p][/quote]Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally
I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?[/p][/quote]But it was ok for saddam to do it yeah?Zexagon

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

But it was ok for saddam to do it yeah?

Two wrongs never make a right. Too think that if he just keep dropping enough bombs on them they will submit, all it does is create more extremists. If somebody killed your wife and kids for no reason, would you want revenge?

[quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
Radical Methodists didn't cause 9/11. Radical Buddhists didn't cause 7/7. Radical Rastafarians didn't cause Beslan. Radical Salvation Army-ists didn't bomb Madrid. Radical Scientologists didn't bomb Kenya. Radical Jehovah's Witnesses didn't murder Pym Fortune and Theo Van Gogh. Radical atheists don't riot over cartoons. Even radical Marxists don't threaten to behead those who disagree with them. Radicalism isn't the problem. Can anyone else figure out what it is?[/p][/quote]Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally
I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?[/p][/quote]But it was ok for saddam to do it yeah?[/p][/quote]Two wrongs never make a right. Too think that if he just keep dropping enough bombs on them they will submit, all it does is create more extremists. If somebody killed your wife and kids for no reason, would you want revenge?bigfella777

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

But it was ok for saddam to do it yeah?

Two wrongs never make a right. Too think that if he just keep dropping enough bombs on them they will submit, all it does is create more extremists. If somebody killed your wife and kids for no reason, would you want revenge?

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.

I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.

Ah that old argument, Ok guess what its 2014 and we have moved on somewhat, now think arming our former barbaric selves with AK47's, Explosives and airplane's there wouldn't be any Muslims left in the world at all would there. The fact is comparing the crusades to modern day is utter nonsense the only thing in common is that back then Christians where fanatical and deluded and today some of these Muslim extremists are also the same. There is a difference however in that now these deluded maniacs are armed with AK's and explosives and fight like cowards picking on the weak and the unsuspecting. They practice an out of date religion with modern weaponry the two do not mix. Dont get me wrong people can believe in what they like but unfortunately Islam does appear to be easily used by Lunatic's to turn naive people to the extremist way of thinking. The islamic community should be doing more to rid themselves of these Lunatics.

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
Radical Methodists didn't cause 9/11. Radical Buddhists didn't cause 7/7. Radical Rastafarians didn't cause Beslan. Radical Salvation Army-ists didn't bomb Madrid. Radical Scientologists didn't bomb Kenya. Radical Jehovah's Witnesses didn't murder Pym Fortune and Theo Van Gogh. Radical atheists don't riot over cartoons. Even radical Marxists don't threaten to behead those who disagree with them. Radicalism isn't the problem. Can anyone else figure out what it is?[/p][/quote]Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally
I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?[/p][/quote]Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.[/p][/quote]I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.[/p][/quote]Ah that old argument, Ok guess what its 2014 and we have moved on somewhat, now think arming our former barbaric selves with AK47's, Explosives and airplane's there wouldn't be any Muslims left in the world at all would there. The fact is comparing the crusades to modern day is utter nonsense the only thing in common is that back then Christians where fanatical and deluded and today some of these Muslim extremists are also the same. There is a difference however in that now these deluded maniacs are armed with AK's and explosives and fight like cowards picking on the weak and the unsuspecting. They practice an out of date religion with modern weaponry the two do not mix. Dont get me wrong people can believe in what they like but unfortunately Islam does appear to be easily used by Lunatic's to turn naive people to the extremist way of thinking. The islamic community should be doing more to rid themselves of these Lunatics.bolloxtoit

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.

I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.

Ah that old argument, Ok guess what its 2014 and we have moved on somewhat, now think arming our former barbaric selves with AK47's, Explosives and airplane's there wouldn't be any Muslims left in the world at all would there. The fact is comparing the crusades to modern day is utter nonsense the only thing in common is that back then Christians where fanatical and deluded and today some of these Muslim extremists are also the same. There is a difference however in that now these deluded maniacs are armed with AK's and explosives and fight like cowards picking on the weak and the unsuspecting. They practice an out of date religion with modern weaponry the two do not mix. Dont get me wrong people can believe in what they like but unfortunately Islam does appear to be easily used by Lunatic's to turn naive people to the extremist way of thinking. The islamic community should be doing more to rid themselves of these Lunatics.

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.

I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.

The invasion of the Christian and Jewish Holy Land came BEFORE the Crusades which were a counter-offensive to Muslim occupation. The British rule of India was supported by the Hindu kingdoms as our rule was far more benign than that of the Islamist Mughals. Regarding slavery, I condemn all forms of it and it is on record that the Muslim Prophet took slaves, owned slaves rewarded his followers with slaves. The Arabs, Ottomans and Corsair Berbers built their empires on the back of the enslaved peoples they took from their homes and ships. As for "blind and uneducated pursuits", I shall not respond to your slight on our partially-sighted community and your opinion of my education with insults, only facts.

You have answered your own question now, if you quote history ours is no better than anybody elses, that is my point.

Could you please show me where in my reply I state British history is no better than Islamic history? I have given you the example of the preference for British rule in India over that of the Islamic Mughals. The British navy ended the Transatlantic slave trade though slavery is still practiced in Islamic countries. Our history, viewed impartially, is far more benign than that of the Islamic Empires.

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
Radical Methodists didn't cause 9/11. Radical Buddhists didn't cause 7/7. Radical Rastafarians didn't cause Beslan. Radical Salvation Army-ists didn't bomb Madrid. Radical Scientologists didn't bomb Kenya. Radical Jehovah's Witnesses didn't murder Pym Fortune and Theo Van Gogh. Radical atheists don't riot over cartoons. Even radical Marxists don't threaten to behead those who disagree with them. Radicalism isn't the problem. Can anyone else figure out what it is?[/p][/quote]Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally
I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?[/p][/quote]Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.[/p][/quote]I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.[/p][/quote]The invasion of the Christian and Jewish Holy Land came BEFORE the Crusades which were a counter-offensive to Muslim occupation. The British rule of India was supported by the Hindu kingdoms as our rule was far more benign than that of the Islamist Mughals. Regarding slavery, I condemn all forms of it and it is on record that the Muslim Prophet took slaves, owned slaves rewarded his followers with slaves. The Arabs, Ottomans and Corsair Berbers built their empires on the back of the enslaved peoples they took from their homes and ships. As for "blind and uneducated pursuits", I shall not respond to your slight on our partially-sighted community and your opinion of my education with insults, only facts.[/p][/quote]You have answered your own question now, if you quote history ours is no better than anybody elses, that is my point.[/p][/quote]Could you please show me where in my reply I state British history is no better than Islamic history? I have given you the example of the preference for British rule in India over that of the Islamic Mughals. The British navy ended the Transatlantic slave trade though slavery is still practiced in Islamic countries. Our history, viewed impartially, is far more benign than that of the Islamic Empires.Orwell's Ghost

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.

I see you have conveniently omitted 200 years of Christian crusades and all the torture and bloodshed that involved or the British Empire and slaughter of indigenous peoples all around the world or 300 years of slavery.
It's all very easy to forget history except the bits that suit your blind, uneducated pursuits.

The invasion of the Christian and Jewish Holy Land came BEFORE the Crusades which were a counter-offensive to Muslim occupation. The British rule of India was supported by the Hindu kingdoms as our rule was far more benign than that of the Islamist Mughals. Regarding slavery, I condemn all forms of it and it is on record that the Muslim Prophet took slaves, owned slaves rewarded his followers with slaves. The Arabs, Ottomans and Corsair Berbers built their empires on the back of the enslaved peoples they took from their homes and ships. As for "blind and uneducated pursuits", I shall not respond to your slight on our partially-sighted community and your opinion of my education with insults, only facts.

You have answered your own question now, if you quote history ours is no better than anybody elses, that is my point.

Could you please show me where in my reply I state British history is no better than Islamic history? I have given you the example of the preference for British rule in India over that of the Islamic Mughals. The British navy ended the Transatlantic slave trade though slavery is still practiced in Islamic countries. Our history, viewed impartially, is far more benign than that of the Islamic Empires.

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.

Riiiiight and oil wasn't a big reason why they were invaded...Terrorism has fack all to do with the invasions it was all about GREED and politics

[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
Radical Methodists didn't cause 9/11. Radical Buddhists didn't cause 7/7. Radical Rastafarians didn't cause Beslan. Radical Salvation Army-ists didn't bomb Madrid. Radical Scientologists didn't bomb Kenya. Radical Jehovah's Witnesses didn't murder Pym Fortune and Theo Van Gogh. Radical atheists don't riot over cartoons. Even radical Marxists don't threaten to behead those who disagree with them. Radicalism isn't the problem. Can anyone else figure out what it is?[/p][/quote]Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally
I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?[/p][/quote]Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.[/p][/quote]Riiiiight and oil wasn't a big reason why they were invaded...Terrorism has fack all to do with the invasions it was all about GREED and politicsMary80

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

Aggressor? Islam was spread by the sword from its very inception, as commanded in the Quran. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, then its colonisation of Persia, North Africa and into Europe were done by military conquest. The Invasion of India caused a colossal amount of deaths. All this before the Capitalist West came into existence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were responses to Islamist terror. 9/11 occurred BEFORE both.

Riiiiight and oil wasn't a big reason why they were invaded...Terrorism has fack all to do with the invasions it was all about GREED and politics

Score: -4

Highfielder
8:49pm Mon 28 Apr 14

bigfella777 wrote…

Highfielder wrote…

Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.

Who are these reputable estimates from? Name them. It's quite coincidence that Churchill wrote this book in 1899 because that's exactly the same year that the first mosque was built in the UK as well so after 120 odd years Muslims only make up 4.8% of the UK population they really need to get a move on don't they to reach your estimates.

In response to bigfella 777 ridiculing what he calls 'my' figures to suggest that England is likely to have a majority Muslim population by 2050:
This is a direct quotation from an article by Richard Karbaj in The Times, Jan/30/2009.

'The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times.
The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals.'

These figures were made public in Jan. 2009 and refer to 2004-2008. In the six years since then the known Muslim population, even just maintaining this rate of growth, will have grown by over a million. Most of these Muslims are in England, so based on the ratio of Muslims to others in England it doesn't take exceptional statistical ability for reputable population growth demographers to have predicted this increase to majority status by 2050.
It needs to be stressed that no one knows how many extra illegal immigrant Muslims there are in England on top of official census figures.
These latter, almost sure to be mainly young and reproductive, will also add to the numbers. Additionally no one knows how many Muslim converts there will be before 2050. They already run into thousands in England, tens of thousands across the EU. It can be said with some confidence that as the Muslim population grows and if it becomes an increasingly unstoppable force across Europe that many ordinary English people will convert to Islam from convenience or fear rather than be reduced to inferior status ('infidels').
Several Muslim organisations in England have publicly predicted that Islam will rule Britain/Europe before many years have passed.
A handful of foreign monks converted the British isles from native folk beliefs to Christianity in a very short period of time. History has lessons for those prepared to listen.

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Highfielder[/bold] wrote:
Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.[/p][/quote]Who are these reputable estimates from? Name them. It's quite coincidence that Churchill wrote this book in 1899 because that's exactly the same year that the first mosque was built in the UK as well so after 120 odd years Muslims only make up 4.8% of the UK population they really need to get a move on don't they to reach your estimates.[/p][/quote]In response to bigfella 777 ridiculing what he calls 'my' figures to suggest that England is likely to have a majority Muslim population by 2050:
This is a direct quotation from an article by Richard Karbaj in The Times, Jan/30/2009.
'The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times.
The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals.'
These figures were made public in Jan. 2009 and refer to 2004-2008. In the six years since then the known Muslim population, even just maintaining this rate of growth, will have grown by over a million. Most of these Muslims are in England, so based on the ratio of Muslims to others in England it doesn't take exceptional statistical ability for reputable population growth demographers to have predicted this increase to majority status by 2050.
It needs to be stressed that no one knows how many extra illegal immigrant Muslims there are in England on top of official census figures.
These latter, almost sure to be mainly young and reproductive, will also add to the numbers. Additionally no one knows how many Muslim converts there will be before 2050. They already run into thousands in England, tens of thousands across the EU. It can be said with some confidence that as the Muslim population grows and if it becomes an increasingly unstoppable force across Europe that many ordinary English people will convert to Islam from convenience or fear rather than be reduced to inferior status ('infidels').
Several Muslim organisations in England have publicly predicted that Islam will rule Britain/Europe before many years have passed.
A handful of foreign monks converted the British isles from native folk beliefs to Christianity in a very short period of time. History has lessons for those prepared to listen.Highfielder

bigfella777 wrote…

Highfielder wrote…

Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.

Who are these reputable estimates from? Name them. It's quite coincidence that Churchill wrote this book in 1899 because that's exactly the same year that the first mosque was built in the UK as well so after 120 odd years Muslims only make up 4.8% of the UK population they really need to get a move on don't they to reach your estimates.

In response to bigfella 777 ridiculing what he calls 'my' figures to suggest that England is likely to have a majority Muslim population by 2050:
This is a direct quotation from an article by Richard Karbaj in The Times, Jan/30/2009.

'The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times.
The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals.'

These figures were made public in Jan. 2009 and refer to 2004-2008. In the six years since then the known Muslim population, even just maintaining this rate of growth, will have grown by over a million. Most of these Muslims are in England, so based on the ratio of Muslims to others in England it doesn't take exceptional statistical ability for reputable population growth demographers to have predicted this increase to majority status by 2050.
It needs to be stressed that no one knows how many extra illegal immigrant Muslims there are in England on top of official census figures.
These latter, almost sure to be mainly young and reproductive, will also add to the numbers. Additionally no one knows how many Muslim converts there will be before 2050. They already run into thousands in England, tens of thousands across the EU. It can be said with some confidence that as the Muslim population grows and if it becomes an increasingly unstoppable force across Europe that many ordinary English people will convert to Islam from convenience or fear rather than be reduced to inferior status ('infidels').
Several Muslim organisations in England have publicly predicted that Islam will rule Britain/Europe before many years have passed.
A handful of foreign monks converted the British isles from native folk beliefs to Christianity in a very short period of time. History has lessons for those prepared to listen.

Score: 4

giveusthefacts
8:54pm Mon 28 Apr 14

So Abu Hamza al Masri is allowed to block the highway and preach Muslim extremist hatred in the streets around Finsbury Park Mosque, with the Police standing by to ensure law and order is maintained, yet the candidate Paul Weston is not allowed to stand in a public place (not obstructing the highway) and quote one of our leading political figures. Agree or disagree with his speech, he has every right to freedom of speech. Unfortunately this country has slipped into a spiral I fear it cannot recover from.

So Abu Hamza al Masri is allowed to block the highway and preach Muslim extremist hatred in the streets around Finsbury Park Mosque, with the Police standing by to ensure law and order is maintained, yet the candidate Paul Weston is not allowed to stand in a public place (not obstructing the highway) and quote one of our leading political figures. Agree or disagree with his speech, he has every right to freedom of speech. Unfortunately this country has slipped into a spiral I fear it cannot recover from.giveusthefacts

So Abu Hamza al Masri is allowed to block the highway and preach Muslim extremist hatred in the streets around Finsbury Park Mosque, with the Police standing by to ensure law and order is maintained, yet the candidate Paul Weston is not allowed to stand in a public place (not obstructing the highway) and quote one of our leading political figures. Agree or disagree with his speech, he has every right to freedom of speech. Unfortunately this country has slipped into a spiral I fear it cannot recover from.

Score: 6

Happy Juggler
9:02pm Mon 28 Apr 14

On the inside wrote…

He is a Christian so his only agenda will be to attack and denigrate other faiths. If you buy the god stuff how can you possibly accept there is more than one of them. Using 100 years old texts is pretty modern for people who usually only accept the existence of one book.

I am offended by this rabidly and offensive anti-Christian note and feel religiously harassed. Can someone take this person off to jail please

[quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote:
He is a Christian so his only agenda will be to attack and denigrate other faiths. If you buy the god stuff how can you possibly accept there is more than one of them. Using 100 years old texts is pretty modern for people who usually only accept the existence of one book.[/p][/quote]I am offended by this rabidly and offensive anti-Christian note and feel religiously harassed. Can someone take this person off to jail pleaseHappy Juggler

On the inside wrote…

He is a Christian so his only agenda will be to attack and denigrate other faiths. If you buy the god stuff how can you possibly accept there is more than one of them. Using 100 years old texts is pretty modern for people who usually only accept the existence of one book.

I am offended by this rabidly and offensive anti-Christian note and feel religiously harassed. Can someone take this person off to jail please

Score: 6

Happy Juggler
9:06pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Do we learn nothing from history - deny an Englishmen freedom and war will surely follow.

Do we learn nothing from history - deny an Englishmen freedom and war will surely follow.Happy Juggler

Do we learn nothing from history - deny an Englishmen freedom and war will surely follow.

Score: 1

bigfella777
11:35pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Highfielder wrote…

bigfella777 wrote…

Highfielder wrote…

Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.

Who are these reputable estimates from? Name them. It's quite coincidence that Churchill wrote this book in 1899 because that's exactly the same year that the first mosque was built in the UK as well so after 120 odd years Muslims only make up 4.8% of the UK population they really need to get a move on don't they to reach your estimates.

In response to bigfella 777 ridiculing what he calls 'my' figures to suggest that England is likely to have a majority Muslim population by 2050:
This is a direct quotation from an article by Richard Karbaj in The Times, Jan/30/2009.

'The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times.
The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals.'

These figures were made public in Jan. 2009 and refer to 2004-2008. In the six years since then the known Muslim population, even just maintaining this rate of growth, will have grown by over a million. Most of these Muslims are in England, so based on the ratio of Muslims to others in England it doesn't take exceptional statistical ability for reputable population growth demographers to have predicted this increase to majority status by 2050.
It needs to be stressed that no one knows how many extra illegal immigrant Muslims there are in England on top of official census figures.
These latter, almost sure to be mainly young and reproductive, will also add to the numbers. Additionally no one knows how many Muslim converts there will be before 2050. They already run into thousands in England, tens of thousands across the EU. It can be said with some confidence that as the Muslim population grows and if it becomes an increasingly unstoppable force across Europe that many ordinary English people will convert to Islam from convenience or fear rather than be reduced to inferior status ('infidels').
Several Muslim organisations in England have publicly predicted that Islam will rule Britain/Europe before many years have passed.
A handful of foreign monks converted the British isles from native folk beliefs to Christianity in a very short period of time. History has lessons for those prepared to listen.

You keep living in fear estimates are not facts. Keep those jackboots polished up as well.

[quote][p][bold]Highfielder[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Highfielder[/bold] wrote:
Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.[/p][/quote]Who are these reputable estimates from? Name them. It's quite coincidence that Churchill wrote this book in 1899 because that's exactly the same year that the first mosque was built in the UK as well so after 120 odd years Muslims only make up 4.8% of the UK population they really need to get a move on don't they to reach your estimates.[/p][/quote]In response to bigfella 777 ridiculing what he calls 'my' figures to suggest that England is likely to have a majority Muslim population by 2050:
This is a direct quotation from an article by Richard Karbaj in The Times, Jan/30/2009.
'The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times.
The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals.'
These figures were made public in Jan. 2009 and refer to 2004-2008. In the six years since then the known Muslim population, even just maintaining this rate of growth, will have grown by over a million. Most of these Muslims are in England, so based on the ratio of Muslims to others in England it doesn't take exceptional statistical ability for reputable population growth demographers to have predicted this increase to majority status by 2050.
It needs to be stressed that no one knows how many extra illegal immigrant Muslims there are in England on top of official census figures.
These latter, almost sure to be mainly young and reproductive, will also add to the numbers. Additionally no one knows how many Muslim converts there will be before 2050. They already run into thousands in England, tens of thousands across the EU. It can be said with some confidence that as the Muslim population grows and if it becomes an increasingly unstoppable force across Europe that many ordinary English people will convert to Islam from convenience or fear rather than be reduced to inferior status ('infidels').
Several Muslim organisations in England have publicly predicted that Islam will rule Britain/Europe before many years have passed.
A handful of foreign monks converted the British isles from native folk beliefs to Christianity in a very short period of time. History has lessons for those prepared to listen.[/p][/quote]You keep living in fear estimates are not facts. Keep those jackboots polished up as well.bigfella777

Highfielder wrote…

bigfella777 wrote…

Highfielder wrote…

Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.

Who are these reputable estimates from? Name them. It's quite coincidence that Churchill wrote this book in 1899 because that's exactly the same year that the first mosque was built in the UK as well so after 120 odd years Muslims only make up 4.8% of the UK population they really need to get a move on don't they to reach your estimates.

In response to bigfella 777 ridiculing what he calls 'my' figures to suggest that England is likely to have a majority Muslim population by 2050:
This is a direct quotation from an article by Richard Karbaj in The Times, Jan/30/2009.

'The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times.
The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals.'

These figures were made public in Jan. 2009 and refer to 2004-2008. In the six years since then the known Muslim population, even just maintaining this rate of growth, will have grown by over a million. Most of these Muslims are in England, so based on the ratio of Muslims to others in England it doesn't take exceptional statistical ability for reputable population growth demographers to have predicted this increase to majority status by 2050.
It needs to be stressed that no one knows how many extra illegal immigrant Muslims there are in England on top of official census figures.
These latter, almost sure to be mainly young and reproductive, will also add to the numbers. Additionally no one knows how many Muslim converts there will be before 2050. They already run into thousands in England, tens of thousands across the EU. It can be said with some confidence that as the Muslim population grows and if it becomes an increasingly unstoppable force across Europe that many ordinary English people will convert to Islam from convenience or fear rather than be reduced to inferior status ('infidels').
Several Muslim organisations in England have publicly predicted that Islam will rule Britain/Europe before many years have passed.
A handful of foreign monks converted the British isles from native folk beliefs to Christianity in a very short period of time. History has lessons for those prepared to listen.

You keep living in fear estimates are not facts. Keep those jackboots polished up as well.

Score: -6

gazdance
5:59am Tue 29 Apr 14

Lots of people quick to comment on and condemn the actions of the police. How typical. I'm assuming you were all there and know exactly everything that went on? A person's right to freedom of speech as granted by the European Convention on Human Rights, does not mean they are then exempt from committing other public order offences by the nature of what they are saying.
If the police receive complaints from members of the public, are they not duty bound to act? Isn't that what we expect of them? I'm sure that, were the circumstances slightly different and the story was about police taking no action, you'd still be complaining.
It's an impossible situation for the police - on the one hand they must balance one individual's rights to free speech with the rights of the wider public affected by his actions.
The arrest was not unlawful. Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of the alcohol that this gentleman had consumed. Under Section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act, a police officer can require a person to leave an area if there is a likelihood that their continued presence could cause disorder in the area. This man ignored this requirement and was arrested. Owing to the complaints from members of the public, he could just as easily have been arrested for a breach of the peace.
Just because he is white and quoting a 100+ year old text by Churchill (ha!) doesn't mean that someone can't take offence.

Lots of people quick to comment on and condemn the actions of the police. How typical. I'm assuming you were all there and know exactly everything that went on? A person's right to freedom of speech as granted by the European Convention on Human Rights, does not mean they are then exempt from committing other public order offences by the nature of what they are saying.
If the police receive complaints from members of the public, are they not duty bound to act? Isn't that what we expect of them? I'm sure that, were the circumstances slightly different and the story was about police taking no action, you'd still be complaining.
It's an impossible situation for the police - on the one hand they must balance one individual's rights to free speech with the rights of the wider public affected by his actions.
The arrest was not unlawful. Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of the alcohol that this gentleman had consumed. Under Section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act, a police officer can require a person to leave an area if there is a likelihood that their continued presence could cause disorder in the area. This man ignored this requirement and was arrested. Owing to the complaints from members of the public, he could just as easily have been arrested for a breach of the peace.
Just because he is white and quoting a 100+ year old text by Churchill (ha!) doesn't mean that someone can't take offence.gazdance

Lots of people quick to comment on and condemn the actions of the police. How typical. I'm assuming you were all there and know exactly everything that went on? A person's right to freedom of speech as granted by the European Convention on Human Rights, does not mean they are then exempt from committing other public order offences by the nature of what they are saying.
If the police receive complaints from members of the public, are they not duty bound to act? Isn't that what we expect of them? I'm sure that, were the circumstances slightly different and the story was about police taking no action, you'd still be complaining.
It's an impossible situation for the police - on the one hand they must balance one individual's rights to free speech with the rights of the wider public affected by his actions.
The arrest was not unlawful. Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of the alcohol that this gentleman had consumed. Under Section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act, a police officer can require a person to leave an area if there is a likelihood that their continued presence could cause disorder in the area. This man ignored this requirement and was arrested. Owing to the complaints from members of the public, he could just as easily have been arrested for a breach of the peace.
Just because he is white and quoting a 100+ year old text by Churchill (ha!) doesn't mean that someone can't take offence.

Score: 0

Orwell's Ghost
6:05am Tue 29 Apr 14

bigfella777 wrote…

Highfielder wrote…

bigfella777 wrote…

Highfielder wrote…

Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.

Who are these reputable estimates from? Name them. It's quite coincidence that Churchill wrote this book in 1899 because that's exactly the same year that the first mosque was built in the UK as well so after 120 odd years Muslims only make up 4.8% of the UK population they really need to get a move on don't they to reach your estimates.

In response to bigfella 777 ridiculing what he calls 'my' figures to suggest that England is likely to have a majority Muslim population by 2050:
This is a direct quotation from an article by Richard Karbaj in The Times, Jan/30/2009.

'The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times.
The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals.'

These figures were made public in Jan. 2009 and refer to 2004-2008. In the six years since then the known Muslim population, even just maintaining this rate of growth, will have grown by over a million. Most of these Muslims are in England, so based on the ratio of Muslims to others in England it doesn't take exceptional statistical ability for reputable population growth demographers to have predicted this increase to majority status by 2050.
It needs to be stressed that no one knows how many extra illegal immigrant Muslims there are in England on top of official census figures.
These latter, almost sure to be mainly young and reproductive, will also add to the numbers. Additionally no one knows how many Muslim converts there will be before 2050. They already run into thousands in England, tens of thousands across the EU. It can be said with some confidence that as the Muslim population grows and if it becomes an increasingly unstoppable force across Europe that many ordinary English people will convert to Islam from convenience or fear rather than be reduced to inferior status ('infidels').
Several Muslim organisations in England have publicly predicted that Islam will rule Britain/Europe before many years have passed.
A handful of foreign monks converted the British isles from native folk beliefs to Christianity in a very short period of time. History has lessons for those prepared to listen.

You keep living in fear estimates are not facts. Keep those jackboots polished up as well.

The jackboots in this instance are clearly those worn by the apparatchiks of the State who arrest election candidates who express an opinion that does not conform to politically correct Marxist orthodoxy. Polish your own jackboots Comrade.

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Highfielder[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Highfielder[/bold] wrote:
Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.[/p][/quote]Who are these reputable estimates from? Name them. It's quite coincidence that Churchill wrote this book in 1899 because that's exactly the same year that the first mosque was built in the UK as well so after 120 odd years Muslims only make up 4.8% of the UK population they really need to get a move on don't they to reach your estimates.[/p][/quote]In response to bigfella 777 ridiculing what he calls 'my' figures to suggest that England is likely to have a majority Muslim population by 2050:
This is a direct quotation from an article by Richard Karbaj in The Times, Jan/30/2009.
'The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times.
The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals.'
These figures were made public in Jan. 2009 and refer to 2004-2008. In the six years since then the known Muslim population, even just maintaining this rate of growth, will have grown by over a million. Most of these Muslims are in England, so based on the ratio of Muslims to others in England it doesn't take exceptional statistical ability for reputable population growth demographers to have predicted this increase to majority status by 2050.
It needs to be stressed that no one knows how many extra illegal immigrant Muslims there are in England on top of official census figures.
These latter, almost sure to be mainly young and reproductive, will also add to the numbers. Additionally no one knows how many Muslim converts there will be before 2050. They already run into thousands in England, tens of thousands across the EU. It can be said with some confidence that as the Muslim population grows and if it becomes an increasingly unstoppable force across Europe that many ordinary English people will convert to Islam from convenience or fear rather than be reduced to inferior status ('infidels').
Several Muslim organisations in England have publicly predicted that Islam will rule Britain/Europe before many years have passed.
A handful of foreign monks converted the British isles from native folk beliefs to Christianity in a very short period of time. History has lessons for those prepared to listen.[/p][/quote]You keep living in fear estimates are not facts. Keep those jackboots polished up as well.[/p][/quote]The jackboots in this instance are clearly those worn by the apparatchiks of the State who arrest election candidates who express an opinion that does not conform to politically correct Marxist orthodoxy. Polish your own jackboots Comrade.Orwell's Ghost

bigfella777 wrote…

Highfielder wrote…

bigfella777 wrote…

Highfielder wrote…

Thanks to R.S. Peters for the quotations from Churchill's book which I have checked elsewhere and they are completely accurate, thus enabling us to make informed comment regarding Liberty GB candidate Paul Weston's arrest outside Winchester Guildhall -- on purely arbitrary grounds -- by no less than two police officers with two PCSOs assisting.
This arrest reminds me of a young woman who was arrested a few years ago for the 'crime' of standing in Parliament Square and reading aloud a list of names of all the British servicemen and women who had been killed in Iraq.
To poster killared who tells us he or she 'was even invited' to a Muslim friend's Eid celebrations, yes that's nice, but unfortunately if you invite your friend to a Christmas or other non-Muslim religious celebration your friend will decline. Try it and see.
Churchill was absolutely correct in his assessment of Islam: the fact that his analysis was made in 1899 in no way invalidates what he said. Some people seem to think that because we (and Europe) now have a large Muslim population that we mustn't upset them and that if we continually cater for their voracious and never-ending demands that at some point in the future we can placate them and all live in peace together.
This Alice in Wonderland day will never come. Reputable estimates based on current demographic trends suggest that England will have a Muslim majority population by 2050, a mere 36 years away.

Who are these reputable estimates from? Name them. It's quite coincidence that Churchill wrote this book in 1899 because that's exactly the same year that the first mosque was built in the UK as well so after 120 odd years Muslims only make up 4.8% of the UK population they really need to get a move on don't they to reach your estimates.

In response to bigfella 777 ridiculing what he calls 'my' figures to suggest that England is likely to have a majority Muslim population by 2050:
This is a direct quotation from an article by Richard Karbaj in The Times, Jan/30/2009.

'The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times.
The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals.'

These figures were made public in Jan. 2009 and refer to 2004-2008. In the six years since then the known Muslim population, even just maintaining this rate of growth, will have grown by over a million. Most of these Muslims are in England, so based on the ratio of Muslims to others in England it doesn't take exceptional statistical ability for reputable population growth demographers to have predicted this increase to majority status by 2050.
It needs to be stressed that no one knows how many extra illegal immigrant Muslims there are in England on top of official census figures.
These latter, almost sure to be mainly young and reproductive, will also add to the numbers. Additionally no one knows how many Muslim converts there will be before 2050. They already run into thousands in England, tens of thousands across the EU. It can be said with some confidence that as the Muslim population grows and if it becomes an increasingly unstoppable force across Europe that many ordinary English people will convert to Islam from convenience or fear rather than be reduced to inferior status ('infidels').
Several Muslim organisations in England have publicly predicted that Islam will rule Britain/Europe before many years have passed.
A handful of foreign monks converted the British isles from native folk beliefs to Christianity in a very short period of time. History has lessons for those prepared to listen.

You keep living in fear estimates are not facts. Keep those jackboots polished up as well.

The jackboots in this instance are clearly those worn by the apparatchiks of the State who arrest election candidates who express an opinion that does not conform to politically correct Marxist orthodoxy. Polish your own jackboots Comrade.

Score: 5

Georgethepie
6:07am Tue 29 Apr 14

killared wrote…

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

No to steal oil yes !

No we went to war based on two men's ego's and desperation to have there names written in history. The excuse used was weapons of mass distruction of which none were found. Is Iraq a safer place today probably not,
Has this war given even more reason for Islamists to dislike us? Yes.
Should Tony Blair and Bush be facing a war crimes court. Yes yes yes.
This has nothing to do with oil just like Afghanistan has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden.

[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote:
Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?[/p][/quote]No to steal oil yes ![/p][/quote]No we went to war based on two men's ego's and desperation to have there names written in history. The excuse used was weapons of mass distruction of which none were found. Is Iraq a safer place today probably not,
Has this war given even more reason for Islamists to dislike us? Yes.
Should Tony Blair and Bush be facing a war crimes court. Yes yes yes.
This has nothing to do with oil just like Afghanistan has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden.Georgethepie

killared wrote…

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

No to steal oil yes !

No we went to war based on two men's ego's and desperation to have there names written in history. The excuse used was weapons of mass distruction of which none were found. Is Iraq a safer place today probably not,
Has this war given even more reason for Islamists to dislike us? Yes.
Should Tony Blair and Bush be facing a war crimes court. Yes yes yes.
This has nothing to do with oil just like Afghanistan has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden.

Score: 0

Georgethepie
6:36am Tue 29 Apr 14

killared wrote…

bigfella777 wrote…

R.S.Peters wrote…

elvisimo wrote…

Orwell's Ghost wrote…

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.

".... quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated...." - elvisomo

Out of date? Really?

i) "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog...”

We see that “fanatical frenzy” of Muslims almost every day on the news; whether in protests in Pakistan on on the streets of London. In fact the wider the Muslim mouths, and the more intense the “frenzy”, the more Islamic a Muslim thinks he is. It's a kind of I'm-more-Islamic-tha

n-thou competition many Muslims have with each other.

ii) “.... here is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”

Islam does not accept free will. Ask a Muslim. Everything is predestined by Allah and even every action and thought of a Muslim is too. That is the primary reason Churchill gives for the backwardness of Muslim countries. Nonetheless, I would say that Islam in its entirety leads to that “apathy” and backwardness: whether that be Islamic literalism, rule-fixation, the distrust of anything not sanctified by Muhammad and the Koran, the hatred of change or progress, etc.

iii) “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”

Muhammad himself had 11 wives at one point. He also married a six-year-old and consummated that marriage when she was 9. Muhammad also had many concubines and sex slaves. Slavery too was practiced by Muhammad and has been a part of Islam ever since. It still exists in parts of the Arab world and even beyond (e.g., in Islamic Sudan – the place Churchill primarily had in mind).

iv) “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”

Now millions, not “thousands”, of Muslims are the “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith”. They are now called jihadists. They were also often called “holy warriors”. Many British “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith” went to wage jihad in Syria. 500, at the very least, are expected to return to the UK any time soon. (According to the BBC, there were more than 200 British Muslims fighting in Syria seven months ago.)

v) “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

Those two Churchillian statements are the most prescient of all.

We got rid of both communism and Nazism. And today “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam.

Absolute twoddle, I am friends with Muslims, I work with Muslims never met friendlier people in my life. There are radical groups in all religions

Same I have a few Muslims friends they are nice people, very respectful they even invited me to their Aid el kebir celebration " end of fasting ", You are so right there are radical group in all religions ! What about that UKIP councillor who blame floods on gay marriage that man is Christian and radical and Crazy !!!

Question if UKIP and it's supports are made up of racists and loonies as the Press and Westminster so want us to believe could the same not be said for the Liberal democrats who want to put the needs of the migrant before that of the British nation.
To me it ponders and interesting question are you just racist if you don't agree with those in power. Yes UKIP has a few nut jobs and you have to wonder how they get through the vetting process. That said all 3 parties have people with arguable extreme views so what makes them any better.
One thing for sure the political elite are worried by UKIP hence the smear campaign that has started.
If only Westminster would listen to the people these groups would die long before getting there moment in the sun

[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]R.S.Peters[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Totton Tim[/bold] wrote:
Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is![/p][/quote]Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?[/p][/quote]So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?[/p][/quote]because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.[/p][/quote]".... quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated...." - elvisomo
Out of date? Really?
i) "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog...”
We see that “fanatical frenzy” of Muslims almost every day on the news; whether in protests in Pakistan on on the streets of London. In fact the wider the Muslim mouths, and the more intense the “frenzy”, the more Islamic a Muslim thinks he is. It's a kind of I'm-more-Islamic-tha
n-thou competition many Muslims have with each other.
ii) “.... here is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”
Islam does not accept free will. Ask a Muslim. Everything is predestined by Allah and even every action and thought of a Muslim is too. That is the primary reason Churchill gives for the backwardness of Muslim countries. Nonetheless, I would say that Islam in its entirety leads to that “apathy” and backwardness: whether that be Islamic literalism, rule-fixation, the distrust of anything not sanctified by Muhammad and the Koran, the hatred of change or progress, etc.
iii) “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”
Muhammad himself had 11 wives at one point. He also married a six-year-old and consummated that marriage when she was 9. Muhammad also had many concubines and sex slaves. Slavery too was practiced by Muhammad and has been a part of Islam ever since. It still exists in parts of the Arab world and even beyond (e.g., in Islamic Sudan – the place Churchill primarily had in mind).
iv) “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”
Now millions, not “thousands”, of Muslims are the “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith”. They are now called jihadists. They were also often called “holy warriors”. Many British “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith” went to wage jihad in Syria. 500, at the very least, are expected to return to the UK any time soon. (According to the BBC, there were more than 200 British Muslims fighting in Syria seven months ago.)
v) “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."
Those two Churchillian statements are the most prescient of all.
We got rid of both communism and Nazism. And today “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam.[/p][/quote]Absolute twoddle, I am friends with Muslims, I work with Muslims never met friendlier people in my life. There are radical groups in all religions[/p][/quote]Same I have a few Muslims friends they are nice people, very respectful they even invited me to their Aid el kebir celebration " end of fasting ", You are so right there are radical group in all religions ! What about that UKIP councillor who blame floods on gay marriage that man is Christian and radical and Crazy !!![/p][/quote]Question if UKIP and it's supports are made up of racists and loonies as the Press and Westminster so want us to believe could the same not be said for the Liberal democrats who want to put the needs of the migrant before that of the British nation.
To me it ponders and interesting question are you just racist if you don't agree with those in power. Yes UKIP has a few nut jobs and you have to wonder how they get through the vetting process. That said all 3 parties have people with arguable extreme views so what makes them any better.
One thing for sure the political elite are worried by UKIP hence the smear campaign that has started.
If only Westminster would listen to the people these groups would die long before getting there moment in the sunGeorgethepie

killared wrote…

bigfella777 wrote…

R.S.Peters wrote…

elvisimo wrote…

Orwell's Ghost wrote…

Charlie Bucket wrote…

Totton Tim wrote…

Strange isn't it that our (expensive) military seems to be running round the world sorting the rights to free speech and freedom in foreign parts but it appears that you can't stand up here and have free speech...unless you are muslim that is!

Do people think all wars are about "freedom of speech" or something?

So Charlie do you believe in the right of election candidates to quote Churchill or don't you?

because someone quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated. Unless you work on the assumption that society has not changed in that intervening period.

".... quotes something written by Churchill over 100 years ago, does not necessarily make it appropriate for today. Sweeping generalisations about any sector of society should not be tolerated...." - elvisomo

Out of date? Really?

i) "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog...”

We see that “fanatical frenzy” of Muslims almost every day on the news; whether in protests in Pakistan on on the streets of London. In fact the wider the Muslim mouths, and the more intense the “frenzy”, the more Islamic a Muslim thinks he is. It's a kind of I'm-more-Islamic-tha

n-thou competition many Muslims have with each other.

ii) “.... here is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”

Islam does not accept free will. Ask a Muslim. Everything is predestined by Allah and even every action and thought of a Muslim is too. That is the primary reason Churchill gives for the backwardness of Muslim countries. Nonetheless, I would say that Islam in its entirety leads to that “apathy” and backwardness: whether that be Islamic literalism, rule-fixation, the distrust of anything not sanctified by Muhammad and the Koran, the hatred of change or progress, etc.

iii) “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”

Muhammad himself had 11 wives at one point. He also married a six-year-old and consummated that marriage when she was 9. Muhammad also had many concubines and sex slaves. Slavery too was practiced by Muhammad and has been a part of Islam ever since. It still exists in parts of the Arab world and even beyond (e.g., in Islamic Sudan – the place Churchill primarily had in mind).

iv) “Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”

Now millions, not “thousands”, of Muslims are the “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith”. They are now called jihadists. They were also often called “holy warriors”. Many British “brave and loyal soldiers of the faith” went to wage jihad in Syria. 500, at the very least, are expected to return to the UK any time soon. (According to the BBC, there were more than 200 British Muslims fighting in Syria seven months ago.)

v) “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

Those two Churchillian statements are the most prescient of all.

We got rid of both communism and Nazism. And today “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam.

Absolute twoddle, I am friends with Muslims, I work with Muslims never met friendlier people in my life. There are radical groups in all religions

Same I have a few Muslims friends they are nice people, very respectful they even invited me to their Aid el kebir celebration " end of fasting ", You are so right there are radical group in all religions ! What about that UKIP councillor who blame floods on gay marriage that man is Christian and radical and Crazy !!!

Question if UKIP and it's supports are made up of racists and loonies as the Press and Westminster so want us to believe could the same not be said for the Liberal democrats who want to put the needs of the migrant before that of the British nation.
To me it ponders and interesting question are you just racist if you don't agree with those in power. Yes UKIP has a few nut jobs and you have to wonder how they get through the vetting process. That said all 3 parties have people with arguable extreme views so what makes them any better.
One thing for sure the political elite are worried by UKIP hence the smear campaign that has started.
If only Westminster would listen to the people these groups would die long before getting there moment in the sun

Score: 1

loosehead
6:54am Tue 29 Apr 14

I might have read the article wrong but doesn't it say members of the public complained to the police?
That means the police were just doing their jobs & the difference between this guy & some Islamist is one is quoting Churchill the other is quoting from a religious book so can be seen promoting his religion & many things can be said under that umbrella.
If it was the EDL or any Right wing group (BNP) shouting out with a megaphone the bile that comes out of some of these Muslim speakers they would be arrested for racial incitement but no they aren't being touched the question has to be why not?

I might have read the article wrong but doesn't it say members of the public complained to the police?
That means the police were just doing their jobs & the difference between this guy & some Islamist is one is quoting Churchill the other is quoting from a religious book so can be seen promoting his religion & many things can be said under that umbrella.
If it was the EDL or any Right wing group (BNP) shouting out with a megaphone the bile that comes out of some of these Muslim speakers they would be arrested for racial incitement but no they aren't being touched the question has to be why not?loosehead

I might have read the article wrong but doesn't it say members of the public complained to the police?
That means the police were just doing their jobs & the difference between this guy & some Islamist is one is quoting Churchill the other is quoting from a religious book so can be seen promoting his religion & many things can be said under that umbrella.
If it was the EDL or any Right wing group (BNP) shouting out with a megaphone the bile that comes out of some of these Muslim speakers they would be arrested for racial incitement but no they aren't being touched the question has to be why not?

Score: 2

killared
8:53am Tue 29 Apr 14

Georgethepie wrote…

killared wrote…

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

No to steal oil yes !

No we went to war based on two men's ego's and desperation to have there names written in history. The excuse used was weapons of mass distruction of which none were found. Is Iraq a safer place today probably not,
Has this war given even more reason for Islamists to dislike us? Yes.
Should Tony Blair and Bush be facing a war crimes court. Yes yes yes.
This has nothing to do with oil just like Afghanistan has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden.

You must be blind big time tell me what Iraq produce on the daily basis oil what Afghanistan produce on the daily basis oil and gas and you really think that we were there to fight for freedom nope just to steal and we did ! Iraq had an embargo when Saddam was president for the Iraqi to have food,cars.... they used to trade oil then that stop because of Saddam and the Yanks got mad and the rest is history !

[quote][p][bold]Georgethepie[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote:
Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?[/p][/quote]No to steal oil yes ![/p][/quote]No we went to war based on two men's ego's and desperation to have there names written in history. The excuse used was weapons of mass distruction of which none were found. Is Iraq a safer place today probably not,
Has this war given even more reason for Islamists to dislike us? Yes.
Should Tony Blair and Bush be facing a war crimes court. Yes yes yes.
This has nothing to do with oil just like Afghanistan has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden.[/p][/quote]You must be blind big time tell me what Iraq produce on the daily basis oil what Afghanistan produce on the daily basis oil and gas and you really think that we were there to fight for freedom nope just to steal and we did ! Iraq had an embargo when Saddam was president for the Iraqi to have food,cars.... they used to trade oil then that stop because of Saddam and the Yanks got mad and the rest is history !killared

Georgethepie wrote…

killared wrote…

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

No to steal oil yes !

No we went to war based on two men's ego's and desperation to have there names written in history. The excuse used was weapons of mass distruction of which none were found. Is Iraq a safer place today probably not,
Has this war given even more reason for Islamists to dislike us? Yes.
Should Tony Blair and Bush be facing a war crimes court. Yes yes yes.
This has nothing to do with oil just like Afghanistan has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden.

You must be blind big time tell me what Iraq produce on the daily basis oil what Afghanistan produce on the daily basis oil and gas and you really think that we were there to fight for freedom nope just to steal and we did ! Iraq had an embargo when Saddam was president for the Iraqi to have food,cars.... they used to trade oil then that stop because of Saddam and the Yanks got mad and the rest is history !

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

But it was ok for saddam to do it yeah?

Can I point some thing out to you, it was never proven that Saddam did any thing wrong, even low I expect he did. The equipment to manufacture was never found no stock piles where ever found, The gassing of the Kurds could of been done by western country's and blame on to Saddam, which would not surprise me at all after all it would not be the first time the western world would have done this, here,s a man that was put into power by the western world to replace the shir of Iraq in the first place and when he stop playing ball with the western world over its oil wealth he was replace.
Afghanistan was a was a leading rule model in the Muslim world, women was fully westernise they could do every thing that any western woman could do, and other Muslim country,s was following at a slower place, but the government would not play ball with the big western company,s and the King agreed with his government, then so what next happen the western world had them all removed they destabilise the country and that,s when all the trouble started then Russian invaded in 1979 as part of the old Russian and Afghanistan alliance.

[quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
Radical Methodists didn't cause 9/11. Radical Buddhists didn't cause 7/7. Radical Rastafarians didn't cause Beslan. Radical Salvation Army-ists didn't bomb Madrid. Radical Scientologists didn't bomb Kenya. Radical Jehovah's Witnesses didn't murder Pym Fortune and Theo Van Gogh. Radical atheists don't riot over cartoons. Even radical Marxists don't threaten to behead those who disagree with them. Radicalism isn't the problem. Can anyone else figure out what it is?[/p][/quote]Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally
I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?[/p][/quote]But it was ok for saddam to do it yeah?[/p][/quote]Can I point some thing out to you, it was never proven that Saddam did any thing wrong, even low I expect he did. The equipment to manufacture was never found no stock piles where ever found, The gassing of the Kurds could of been done by western country's and blame on to Saddam, which would not surprise me at all after all it would not be the first time the western world would have done this, here,s a man that was put into power by the western world to replace the shir of Iraq in the first place and when he stop playing ball with the western world over its oil wealth he was replace.
Afghanistan was a was a leading rule model in the Muslim world, women was fully westernise they could do every thing that any western woman could do, and other Muslim country,s was following at a slower place, but the government would not play ball with the big western company,s and the King agreed with his government, then so what next happen the western world had them all removed they destabilise the country and that,s when all the trouble started then Russian invaded in 1979 as part of the old Russian and Afghanistan alliance.southy

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

But it was ok for saddam to do it yeah?

Can I point some thing out to you, it was never proven that Saddam did any thing wrong, even low I expect he did. The equipment to manufacture was never found no stock piles where ever found, The gassing of the Kurds could of been done by western country's and blame on to Saddam, which would not surprise me at all after all it would not be the first time the western world would have done this, here,s a man that was put into power by the western world to replace the shir of Iraq in the first place and when he stop playing ball with the western world over its oil wealth he was replace.
Afghanistan was a was a leading rule model in the Muslim world, women was fully westernise they could do every thing that any western woman could do, and other Muslim country,s was following at a slower place, but the government would not play ball with the big western company,s and the King agreed with his government, then so what next happen the western world had them all removed they destabilise the country and that,s when all the trouble started then Russian invaded in 1979 as part of the old Russian and Afghanistan alliance.

Score: 0

Woolston ollie
12:25pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Elect him now. If he was a muslem he would not have been touched

Elect him now. If he was a muslem he would not have been touchedWoolston ollie

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

But it was ok for saddam to do it yeah?

Can I point some thing out to you, it was never proven that Saddam did any thing wrong, even low I expect he did. The equipment to manufacture was never found no stock piles where ever found, The gassing of the Kurds could of been done by western country's and blame on to Saddam, which would not surprise me at all after all it would not be the first time the western world would have done this, here,s a man that was put into power by the western world to replace the shir of Iraq in the first place and when he stop playing ball with the western world over its oil wealth he was replace.
Afghanistan was a was a leading rule model in the Muslim world, women was fully westernise they could do every thing that any western woman could do, and other Muslim country,s was following at a slower place, but the government would not play ball with the big western company,s and the King agreed with his government, then so what next happen the western world had them all removed they destabilise the country and that,s when all the trouble started then Russian invaded in 1979 as part of the old Russian and Afghanistan alliance.

Really Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban the women would have been killed for wearing western clothing.
Iraq under Saddam saw the Shi- Ites in the south attacked with chemicals .
are you really saying that was the west's fault?
In Afganhistan the mughadein (hope I've spelt it right) (anti communists) were lead by a moderate man a man the Taliban killed once they won.
The problem is now we've seen what happened there we don't want to arm the Syrian rebels in case the same type of islamists gain power using our weapons.

[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
Radical Methodists didn't cause 9/11. Radical Buddhists didn't cause 7/7. Radical Rastafarians didn't cause Beslan. Radical Salvation Army-ists didn't bomb Madrid. Radical Scientologists didn't bomb Kenya. Radical Jehovah's Witnesses didn't murder Pym Fortune and Theo Van Gogh. Radical atheists don't riot over cartoons. Even radical Marxists don't threaten to behead those who disagree with them. Radicalism isn't the problem. Can anyone else figure out what it is?[/p][/quote]Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally
I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?[/p][/quote]But it was ok for saddam to do it yeah?[/p][/quote]Can I point some thing out to you, it was never proven that Saddam did any thing wrong, even low I expect he did. The equipment to manufacture was never found no stock piles where ever found, The gassing of the Kurds could of been done by western country's and blame on to Saddam, which would not surprise me at all after all it would not be the first time the western world would have done this, here,s a man that was put into power by the western world to replace the shir of Iraq in the first place and when he stop playing ball with the western world over its oil wealth he was replace.
Afghanistan was a was a leading rule model in the Muslim world, women was fully westernise they could do every thing that any western woman could do, and other Muslim country,s was following at a slower place, but the government would not play ball with the big western company,s and the King agreed with his government, then so what next happen the western world had them all removed they destabilise the country and that,s when all the trouble started then Russian invaded in 1979 as part of the old Russian and Afghanistan alliance.[/p][/quote]Really Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban the women would have been killed for wearing western clothing.
Iraq under Saddam saw the Shi- Ites in the south attacked with chemicals .
are you really saying that was the west's fault?
In Afganhistan the mughadein (hope I've spelt it right) (anti communists) were lead by a moderate man a man the Taliban killed once they won.
The problem is now we've seen what happened there we don't want to arm the Syrian rebels in case the same type of islamists gain power using our weapons.loosehead

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

But it was ok for saddam to do it yeah?

Can I point some thing out to you, it was never proven that Saddam did any thing wrong, even low I expect he did. The equipment to manufacture was never found no stock piles where ever found, The gassing of the Kurds could of been done by western country's and blame on to Saddam, which would not surprise me at all after all it would not be the first time the western world would have done this, here,s a man that was put into power by the western world to replace the shir of Iraq in the first place and when he stop playing ball with the western world over its oil wealth he was replace.
Afghanistan was a was a leading rule model in the Muslim world, women was fully westernise they could do every thing that any western woman could do, and other Muslim country,s was following at a slower place, but the government would not play ball with the big western company,s and the King agreed with his government, then so what next happen the western world had them all removed they destabilise the country and that,s when all the trouble started then Russian invaded in 1979 as part of the old Russian and Afghanistan alliance.

Really Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban the women would have been killed for wearing western clothing.
Iraq under Saddam saw the Shi- Ites in the south attacked with chemicals .
are you really saying that was the west's fault?
In Afganhistan the mughadein (hope I've spelt it right) (anti communists) were lead by a moderate man a man the Taliban killed once they won.
The problem is now we've seen what happened there we don't want to arm the Syrian rebels in case the same type of islamists gain power using our weapons.

Score: 1

Gristy
3:26pm Tue 29 Apr 14

killared wrote…

Gristy wrote…

Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it!

funny you said that because your so called British friends who live in South Africa are foreigners in South Africa so why are they complaining when they are living in South Africa don't you think they should clean their own house before talking from far away ? They don't speak Afrikaans as far as we all established and they live and you live in the gated area where most of your neighbours are mainly white ! So please spare us because that's exactly how South African white or Black think about you a foreigners who live in South Africa and who don't speak Afrikaans just English ! Please clean you won house before talking from far away. I'm not angry but you are not in England anymore yes you might see what happen when you come here from XMAS but that's it !

To be quite honest, I was expecting comments like yours Killared and bigfella777A .. You are obviously part of the "brain washed" people i mentioned in my original post. You have totally missed my point. Perhaps i did not make myself very clear?
My point quite simply is, Where has the Green and Pleasant land gone? Where has the pride in "your" country gone? Why do the Police walk around armed now? Why is chewing gum splattered all over the pavements and litter fluttering around every pub and railway station? why do teachers get knifed by pupils? Why are the health services under pressure? Why are schools crowded and extra staff have to be employed because three quarters of the pupils can't speak English? I could goi on.
Why not face it up to it England has changed and it ain't the proud, happy and prosperous country it was post war. it was. All changed when the Immigration flood gates were opened wide during Blair's tenure.

[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Gristy[/bold] wrote:
Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it![/p][/quote]funny you said that because your so called British friends who live in South Africa are foreigners in South Africa so why are they complaining when they are living in South Africa don't you think they should clean their own house before talking from far away ? They don't speak Afrikaans as far as we all established and they live and you live in the gated area where most of your neighbours are mainly white ! So please spare us because that's exactly how South African white or Black think about you a foreigners who live in South Africa and who don't speak Afrikaans just English ! Please clean you won house before talking from far away. I'm not angry but you are not in England anymore yes you might see what happen when you come here from XMAS but that's it ![/p][/quote]To be quite honest, I was expecting comments like yours Killared and bigfella777A .. You are obviously part of the "brain washed" people i mentioned in my original post. You have totally missed my point. Perhaps i did not make myself very clear?
My point quite simply is, Where has the Green and Pleasant land gone? Where has the pride in "your" country gone? Why do the Police walk around armed now? Why is chewing gum splattered all over the pavements and litter fluttering around every pub and railway station? why do teachers get knifed by pupils? Why are the health services under pressure? Why are schools crowded and extra staff have to be employed because three quarters of the pupils can't speak English? I could goi on.
Why not face it up to it England has changed and it ain't the proud, happy and prosperous country it was post war. it was. All changed when the Immigration flood gates were opened wide during Blair's tenure.Gristy

killared wrote…

Gristy wrote…

Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it!

funny you said that because your so called British friends who live in South Africa are foreigners in South Africa so why are they complaining when they are living in South Africa don't you think they should clean their own house before talking from far away ? They don't speak Afrikaans as far as we all established and they live and you live in the gated area where most of your neighbours are mainly white ! So please spare us because that's exactly how South African white or Black think about you a foreigners who live in South Africa and who don't speak Afrikaans just English ! Please clean you won house before talking from far away. I'm not angry but you are not in England anymore yes you might see what happen when you come here from XMAS but that's it !

To be quite honest, I was expecting comments like yours Killared and bigfella777A .. You are obviously part of the "brain washed" people i mentioned in my original post. You have totally missed my point. Perhaps i did not make myself very clear?
My point quite simply is, Where has the Green and Pleasant land gone? Where has the pride in "your" country gone? Why do the Police walk around armed now? Why is chewing gum splattered all over the pavements and litter fluttering around every pub and railway station? why do teachers get knifed by pupils? Why are the health services under pressure? Why are schools crowded and extra staff have to be employed because three quarters of the pupils can't speak English? I could goi on.
Why not face it up to it England has changed and it ain't the proud, happy and prosperous country it was post war. it was. All changed when the Immigration flood gates were opened wide during Blair's tenure.

Score: -2

bigfella777
3:57pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Gristy wrote…

killared wrote…

Gristy wrote…

Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it!

funny you said that because your so called British friends who live in South Africa are foreigners in South Africa so why are they complaining when they are living in South Africa don't you think they should clean their own house before talking from far away ? They don't speak Afrikaans as far as we all established and they live and you live in the gated area where most of your neighbours are mainly white ! So please spare us because that's exactly how South African white or Black think about you a foreigners who live in South Africa and who don't speak Afrikaans just English ! Please clean you won house before talking from far away. I'm not angry but you are not in England anymore yes you might see what happen when you come here from XMAS but that's it !

To be quite honest, I was expecting comments like yours Killared and bigfella777A .. You are obviously part of the "brain washed" people i mentioned in my original post. You have totally missed my point. Perhaps i did not make myself very clear?
My point quite simply is, Where has the Green and Pleasant land gone? Where has the pride in "your" country gone? Why do the Police walk around armed now? Why is chewing gum splattered all over the pavements and litter fluttering around every pub and railway station? why do teachers get knifed by pupils? Why are the health services under pressure? Why are schools crowded and extra staff have to be employed because three quarters of the pupils can't speak English? I could goi on.
Why not face it up to it England has changed and it ain't the proud, happy and prosperous country it was post war. it was. All changed when the Immigration flood gates were opened wide during Blair's tenure.

It sounds like what happened is you have become more and more depressed as you got older and it's you who has been brainwashed by right wing propaganda and newspapers like the Daily Express.
If you want the green and pleasant land you can drive out to the New Forest there's loads of it. The Police are not all armed now , litter is fluttering around because people don't put it in the bin, the health service is under pressure because of the mess Tony Blair's lot got it into, all curriculum's are taught in English and having so many bilingual pupils will be a plus in the future.
To level any of these problems at the door of immigrants is just ridiculous, what about all the great athletes who have come here, business men, doctors and nurses who without the NHS would collapse,teachers, migrants from Europe have been an enormous help to us during the recession helping keep costs down, paying tax, starting new businesses when others are all closing down.
You come across as very naive and blinkered, it's your sort this country could do without.

[quote][p][bold]Gristy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Gristy[/bold] wrote:
Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it![/p][/quote]funny you said that because your so called British friends who live in South Africa are foreigners in South Africa so why are they complaining when they are living in South Africa don't you think they should clean their own house before talking from far away ? They don't speak Afrikaans as far as we all established and they live and you live in the gated area where most of your neighbours are mainly white ! So please spare us because that's exactly how South African white or Black think about you a foreigners who live in South Africa and who don't speak Afrikaans just English ! Please clean you won house before talking from far away. I'm not angry but you are not in England anymore yes you might see what happen when you come here from XMAS but that's it ![/p][/quote]To be quite honest, I was expecting comments like yours Killared and bigfella777A .. You are obviously part of the "brain washed" people i mentioned in my original post. You have totally missed my point. Perhaps i did not make myself very clear?
My point quite simply is, Where has the Green and Pleasant land gone? Where has the pride in "your" country gone? Why do the Police walk around armed now? Why is chewing gum splattered all over the pavements and litter fluttering around every pub and railway station? why do teachers get knifed by pupils? Why are the health services under pressure? Why are schools crowded and extra staff have to be employed because three quarters of the pupils can't speak English? I could goi on.
Why not face it up to it England has changed and it ain't the proud, happy and prosperous country it was post war. it was. All changed when the Immigration flood gates were opened wide during Blair's tenure.[/p][/quote]It sounds like what happened is you have become more and more depressed as you got older and it's you who has been brainwashed by right wing propaganda and newspapers like the Daily Express.
If you want the green and pleasant land you can drive out to the New Forest there's loads of it. The Police are not all armed now , litter is fluttering around because people don't put it in the bin, the health service is under pressure because of the mess Tony Blair's lot got it into, all curriculum's are taught in English and having so many bilingual pupils will be a plus in the future.
To level any of these problems at the door of immigrants is just ridiculous, what about all the great athletes who have come here, business men, doctors and nurses who without the NHS would collapse,teachers, migrants from Europe have been an enormous help to us during the recession helping keep costs down, paying tax, starting new businesses when others are all closing down.
You come across as very naive and blinkered, it's your sort this country could do without.bigfella777

Gristy wrote…

killared wrote…

Gristy wrote…

Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it!

funny you said that because your so called British friends who live in South Africa are foreigners in South Africa so why are they complaining when they are living in South Africa don't you think they should clean their own house before talking from far away ? They don't speak Afrikaans as far as we all established and they live and you live in the gated area where most of your neighbours are mainly white ! So please spare us because that's exactly how South African white or Black think about you a foreigners who live in South Africa and who don't speak Afrikaans just English ! Please clean you won house before talking from far away. I'm not angry but you are not in England anymore yes you might see what happen when you come here from XMAS but that's it !

To be quite honest, I was expecting comments like yours Killared and bigfella777A .. You are obviously part of the "brain washed" people i mentioned in my original post. You have totally missed my point. Perhaps i did not make myself very clear?
My point quite simply is, Where has the Green and Pleasant land gone? Where has the pride in "your" country gone? Why do the Police walk around armed now? Why is chewing gum splattered all over the pavements and litter fluttering around every pub and railway station? why do teachers get knifed by pupils? Why are the health services under pressure? Why are schools crowded and extra staff have to be employed because three quarters of the pupils can't speak English? I could goi on.
Why not face it up to it England has changed and it ain't the proud, happy and prosperous country it was post war. it was. All changed when the Immigration flood gates were opened wide during Blair's tenure.

It sounds like what happened is you have become more and more depressed as you got older and it's you who has been brainwashed by right wing propaganda and newspapers like the Daily Express.
If you want the green and pleasant land you can drive out to the New Forest there's loads of it. The Police are not all armed now , litter is fluttering around because people don't put it in the bin, the health service is under pressure because of the mess Tony Blair's lot got it into, all curriculum's are taught in English and having so many bilingual pupils will be a plus in the future.
To level any of these problems at the door of immigrants is just ridiculous, what about all the great athletes who have come here, business men, doctors and nurses who without the NHS would collapse,teachers, migrants from Europe have been an enormous help to us during the recession helping keep costs down, paying tax, starting new businesses when others are all closing down.
You come across as very naive and blinkered, it's your sort this country could do without.

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

But it was ok for saddam to do it yeah?

Can I point some thing out to you, it was never proven that Saddam did any thing wrong, even low I expect he did. The equipment to manufacture was never found no stock piles where ever found, The gassing of the Kurds could of been done by western country's and blame on to Saddam, which would not surprise me at all after all it would not be the first time the western world would have done this, here,s a man that was put into power by the western world to replace the shir of Iraq in the first place and when he stop playing ball with the western world over its oil wealth he was replace.
Afghanistan was a was a leading rule model in the Muslim world, women was fully westernise they could do every thing that any western woman could do, and other Muslim country,s was following at a slower place, but the government would not play ball with the big western company,s and the King agreed with his government, then so what next happen the western world had them all removed they destabilise the country and that,s when all the trouble started then Russian invaded in 1979 as part of the old Russian and Afghanistan alliance.

Really Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban the women would have been killed for wearing western clothing.
Iraq under Saddam saw the Shi- Ites in the south attacked with chemicals .
are you really saying that was the west's fault?
In Afganhistan the mughadein (hope I've spelt it right) (anti communists) were lead by a moderate man a man the Taliban killed once they won.
The problem is now we've seen what happened there we don't want to arm the Syrian rebels in case the same type of islamists gain power using our weapons.

Loose this was before the Taliban,s power, and yes it was the west fault that the Taliban came to power, why don't you check film archives before Taliban,s power gain when it was a Shah/Shar was the head of state, it was a rule model for other Muslim country's to follow and they did at a slower level, Iran, Iraq all had crown head of states and it was the Western world that had them all removed when they stop playing ball.
As for Syria Terrorist Rebels they was armed by the UK, French and the USA it was these 3 country,s that supplied the Saudi Prince to supply the Syrian Terrors Rebels, That information as all ready came out.

[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Orwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote:
Radical Methodists didn't cause 9/11. Radical Buddhists didn't cause 7/7. Radical Rastafarians didn't cause Beslan. Radical Salvation Army-ists didn't bomb Madrid. Radical Scientologists didn't bomb Kenya. Radical Jehovah's Witnesses didn't murder Pym Fortune and Theo Van Gogh. Radical atheists don't riot over cartoons. Even radical Marxists don't threaten to behead those who disagree with them. Radicalism isn't the problem. Can anyone else figure out what it is?[/p][/quote]Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally
I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?[/p][/quote]But it was ok for saddam to do it yeah?[/p][/quote]Can I point some thing out to you, it was never proven that Saddam did any thing wrong, even low I expect he did. The equipment to manufacture was never found no stock piles where ever found, The gassing of the Kurds could of been done by western country's and blame on to Saddam, which would not surprise me at all after all it would not be the first time the western world would have done this, here,s a man that was put into power by the western world to replace the shir of Iraq in the first place and when he stop playing ball with the western world over its oil wealth he was replace.
Afghanistan was a was a leading rule model in the Muslim world, women was fully westernise they could do every thing that any western woman could do, and other Muslim country,s was following at a slower place, but the government would not play ball with the big western company,s and the King agreed with his government, then so what next happen the western world had them all removed they destabilise the country and that,s when all the trouble started then Russian invaded in 1979 as part of the old Russian and Afghanistan alliance.[/p][/quote]Really Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban the women would have been killed for wearing western clothing.
Iraq under Saddam saw the Shi- Ites in the south attacked with chemicals .
are you really saying that was the west's fault?
In Afganhistan the mughadein (hope I've spelt it right) (anti communists) were lead by a moderate man a man the Taliban killed once they won.
The problem is now we've seen what happened there we don't want to arm the Syrian rebels in case the same type of islamists gain power using our weapons.[/p][/quote]Loose this was before the Taliban,s power, and yes it was the west fault that the Taliban came to power, why don't you check film archives before Taliban,s power gain when it was a Shah/Shar was the head of state, it was a rule model for other Muslim country's to follow and they did at a slower level, Iran, Iraq all had crown head of states and it was the Western world that had them all removed when they stop playing ball.
As for Syria Terrorist Rebels they was armed by the UK, French and the USA it was these 3 country,s that supplied the Saudi Prince to supply the Syrian Terrors Rebels, That information as all ready came out.southy

Muslims didn't illegally invade Iraq and kill 500,000 people including women and children
Muslims didn't invade Afghanistan and kill 200,000 people including women and children
Muslims don't carry out drone strikes across Pakistan at random killing women and children
90% of all terror attacks are carried out by non Muslims
There are more extremist left-wing groups than right-wing globally

I could go on all day, just a few reasons why some Muslims might get slightly cheesed off with the West's continued actions against they're lands and people.
Who is the aggressor?

But it was ok for saddam to do it yeah?

Can I point some thing out to you, it was never proven that Saddam did any thing wrong, even low I expect he did. The equipment to manufacture was never found no stock piles where ever found, The gassing of the Kurds could of been done by western country's and blame on to Saddam, which would not surprise me at all after all it would not be the first time the western world would have done this, here,s a man that was put into power by the western world to replace the shir of Iraq in the first place and when he stop playing ball with the western world over its oil wealth he was replace.
Afghanistan was a was a leading rule model in the Muslim world, women was fully westernise they could do every thing that any western woman could do, and other Muslim country,s was following at a slower place, but the government would not play ball with the big western company,s and the King agreed with his government, then so what next happen the western world had them all removed they destabilise the country and that,s when all the trouble started then Russian invaded in 1979 as part of the old Russian and Afghanistan alliance.

Really Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban the women would have been killed for wearing western clothing.
Iraq under Saddam saw the Shi- Ites in the south attacked with chemicals .
are you really saying that was the west's fault?
In Afganhistan the mughadein (hope I've spelt it right) (anti communists) were lead by a moderate man a man the Taliban killed once they won.
The problem is now we've seen what happened there we don't want to arm the Syrian rebels in case the same type of islamists gain power using our weapons.

Loose this was before the Taliban,s power, and yes it was the west fault that the Taliban came to power, why don't you check film archives before Taliban,s power gain when it was a Shah/Shar was the head of state, it was a rule model for other Muslim country's to follow and they did at a slower level, Iran, Iraq all had crown head of states and it was the Western world that had them all removed when they stop playing ball.
As for Syria Terrorist Rebels they was armed by the UK, French and the USA it was these 3 country,s that supplied the Saudi Prince to supply the Syrian Terrors Rebels, That information as all ready came out.

Score: 0

Gristy
3:36pm Wed 30 Apr 14

bigfella777 wrote…

Gristy wrote…

killared wrote…

Gristy wrote…

Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it!

funny you said that because your so called British friends who live in South Africa are foreigners in South Africa so why are they complaining when they are living in South Africa don't you think they should clean their own house before talking from far away ? They don't speak Afrikaans as far as we all established and they live and you live in the gated area where most of your neighbours are mainly white ! So please spare us because that's exactly how South African white or Black think about you a foreigners who live in South Africa and who don't speak Afrikaans just English ! Please clean you won house before talking from far away. I'm not angry but you are not in England anymore yes you might see what happen when you come here from XMAS but that's it !

To be quite honest, I was expecting comments like yours Killared and bigfella777A .. You are obviously part of the "brain washed" people i mentioned in my original post. You have totally missed my point. Perhaps i did not make myself very clear?
My point quite simply is, Where has the Green and Pleasant land gone? Where has the pride in "your" country gone? Why do the Police walk around armed now? Why is chewing gum splattered all over the pavements and litter fluttering around every pub and railway station? why do teachers get knifed by pupils? Why are the health services under pressure? Why are schools crowded and extra staff have to be employed because three quarters of the pupils can't speak English? I could goi on.
Why not face it up to it England has changed and it ain't the proud, happy and prosperous country it was post war. it was. All changed when the Immigration flood gates were opened wide during Blair's tenure.

It sounds like what happened is you have become more and more depressed as you got older and it's you who has been brainwashed by right wing propaganda and newspapers like the Daily Express.
If you want the green and pleasant land you can drive out to the New Forest there's loads of it. The Police are not all armed now , litter is fluttering around because people don't put it in the bin, the health service is under pressure because of the mess Tony Blair's lot got it into, all curriculum's are taught in English and having so many bilingual pupils will be a plus in the future.
To level any of these problems at the door of immigrants is just ridiculous, what about all the great athletes who have come here, business men, doctors and nurses who without the NHS would collapse,teachers, migrants from Europe have been an enormous help to us during the recession helping keep costs down, paying tax, starting new businesses when others are all closing down.
You come across as very naive and blinkered, it's your sort this country could do without.

There you go again, BRAINWASHED by soft liberal lefties who have done their best o stuff up the country and turn it in to a NANNY state!. All propaganda stuff and suckers like you believe it. One day, my friend, when 'real' and patriotic people get off their bums, you lot who think this way and know it all, will be in the proverbial S***.

How on earth do you think the country managed before mass immigration? The reason you have all these so called nurses, doctors and bilingualism stuff is due to mass immigration. We managed before thank you very much and very well at that!.

[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Gristy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Gristy[/bold] wrote:
Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it![/p][/quote]funny you said that because your so called British friends who live in South Africa are foreigners in South Africa so why are they complaining when they are living in South Africa don't you think they should clean their own house before talking from far away ? They don't speak Afrikaans as far as we all established and they live and you live in the gated area where most of your neighbours are mainly white ! So please spare us because that's exactly how South African white or Black think about you a foreigners who live in South Africa and who don't speak Afrikaans just English ! Please clean you won house before talking from far away. I'm not angry but you are not in England anymore yes you might see what happen when you come here from XMAS but that's it ![/p][/quote]To be quite honest, I was expecting comments like yours Killared and bigfella777A .. You are obviously part of the "brain washed" people i mentioned in my original post. You have totally missed my point. Perhaps i did not make myself very clear?
My point quite simply is, Where has the Green and Pleasant land gone? Where has the pride in "your" country gone? Why do the Police walk around armed now? Why is chewing gum splattered all over the pavements and litter fluttering around every pub and railway station? why do teachers get knifed by pupils? Why are the health services under pressure? Why are schools crowded and extra staff have to be employed because three quarters of the pupils can't speak English? I could goi on.
Why not face it up to it England has changed and it ain't the proud, happy and prosperous country it was post war. it was. All changed when the Immigration flood gates were opened wide during Blair's tenure.[/p][/quote]It sounds like what happened is you have become more and more depressed as you got older and it's you who has been brainwashed by right wing propaganda and newspapers like the Daily Express.
If you want the green and pleasant land you can drive out to the New Forest there's loads of it. The Police are not all armed now , litter is fluttering around because people don't put it in the bin, the health service is under pressure because of the mess Tony Blair's lot got it into, all curriculum's are taught in English and having so many bilingual pupils will be a plus in the future.
To level any of these problems at the door of immigrants is just ridiculous, what about all the great athletes who have come here, business men, doctors and nurses who without the NHS would collapse,teachers, migrants from Europe have been an enormous help to us during the recession helping keep costs down, paying tax, starting new businesses when others are all closing down.
You come across as very naive and blinkered, it's your sort this country could do without.[/p][/quote]There you go again, BRAINWASHED by soft liberal lefties who have done their best o stuff up the country and turn it in to a NANNY state!. All propaganda stuff and suckers like you believe it. One day, my friend, when 'real' and patriotic people get off their bums, you lot who think this way and know it all, will be in the proverbial S***.
How on earth do you think the country managed before mass immigration? The reason you have all these so called nurses, doctors and bilingualism stuff is due to mass immigration. We managed before thank you very much and very well at that!.Gristy

bigfella777 wrote…

Gristy wrote…

killared wrote…

Gristy wrote…

Over the years, I have from time to time visited the UK following my retirement now for 14 years.I had worked for 55 years overseas with British companies in the Agricultural sector helping others in tropical countries to grow crops in order that they can feed their families.. I now live in South Africa and find my occasional UK visits difficult as far as the climate is concerned but most of all, my heart bleeds for the loss of the green and pleasant land, once populated by people who were proud of their British heritage, hard work and industry.. You meet many Brits overseas and with the exception of a few who claim that British weather sent them scuttling abroad, the vast majority openly say, that they just could stand for the way in which the country has changed, the nanny state, the ridiculous nonsense of getting in to trouble if one should say something like "there are too many foreigners on this island".The rot started during the Blair Brown tenure's of office hen Blair and his cronies opened the flood gates to uncontrolled immigration. Many of the the worlds Riff-Raff made a bee line for Britain's shores knowing full well they would be well treated, with housing, medical attention and money to live on. At the same time, Lefties who had become somehow dominant in the education sector started blurting left wing propaganda to young children that multiculturalism is good and that the children must accept all these strange people they now saw on the streets and be kind to them even if they could not speak a word of English. So the brain washing went on and on. The police who had by now been totally brainwashed were terrified of questioning a black person or saying anything which could be interpreted, even in the loosest sense as being racist. So my friends, I feel very sorry for you all. It will take a great man or, woman to stand up now and put dear old England back on her feet again.
Matters have gone so far and we all know what people do if they are stamped down and trampled upon. Yes, they rise up and do something about it!

funny you said that because your so called British friends who live in South Africa are foreigners in South Africa so why are they complaining when they are living in South Africa don't you think they should clean their own house before talking from far away ? They don't speak Afrikaans as far as we all established and they live and you live in the gated area where most of your neighbours are mainly white ! So please spare us because that's exactly how South African white or Black think about you a foreigners who live in South Africa and who don't speak Afrikaans just English ! Please clean you won house before talking from far away. I'm not angry but you are not in England anymore yes you might see what happen when you come here from XMAS but that's it !

To be quite honest, I was expecting comments like yours Killared and bigfella777A .. You are obviously part of the "brain washed" people i mentioned in my original post. You have totally missed my point. Perhaps i did not make myself very clear?
My point quite simply is, Where has the Green and Pleasant land gone? Where has the pride in "your" country gone? Why do the Police walk around armed now? Why is chewing gum splattered all over the pavements and litter fluttering around every pub and railway station? why do teachers get knifed by pupils? Why are the health services under pressure? Why are schools crowded and extra staff have to be employed because three quarters of the pupils can't speak English? I could goi on.
Why not face it up to it England has changed and it ain't the proud, happy and prosperous country it was post war. it was. All changed when the Immigration flood gates were opened wide during Blair's tenure.

It sounds like what happened is you have become more and more depressed as you got older and it's you who has been brainwashed by right wing propaganda and newspapers like the Daily Express.
If you want the green and pleasant land you can drive out to the New Forest there's loads of it. The Police are not all armed now , litter is fluttering around because people don't put it in the bin, the health service is under pressure because of the mess Tony Blair's lot got it into, all curriculum's are taught in English and having so many bilingual pupils will be a plus in the future.
To level any of these problems at the door of immigrants is just ridiculous, what about all the great athletes who have come here, business men, doctors and nurses who without the NHS would collapse,teachers, migrants from Europe have been an enormous help to us during the recession helping keep costs down, paying tax, starting new businesses when others are all closing down.
You come across as very naive and blinkered, it's your sort this country could do without.

There you go again, BRAINWASHED by soft liberal lefties who have done their best o stuff up the country and turn it in to a NANNY state!. All propaganda stuff and suckers like you believe it. One day, my friend, when 'real' and patriotic people get off their bums, you lot who think this way and know it all, will be in the proverbial S***.

How on earth do you think the country managed before mass immigration? The reason you have all these so called nurses, doctors and bilingualism stuff is due to mass immigration. We managed before thank you very much and very well at that!.

Score: 0

cornishkev
11:42am Sat 17 May 14

killared wrote…

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

No to steal oil yes !

You spend to much time reading the Daily Mail

[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote:
Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?[/p][/quote]No to steal oil yes ![/p][/quote]You spend to much time reading the Daily Mailcornishkev

killared wrote…

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

No to steal oil yes !

You spend to much time reading the Daily Mail

Score: 0

cornishkev
11:43am Sat 17 May 14

R.S.Peters wrote…

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

Yes, but millions of Muslims don't want free speech.

Iraq's Shia Muslims primarily wanted to substitute Sunni power with Shia power. Freedom of speech in Iraq is a foreign concept. Imposing democracy of such Muslim states is like imposing the consumption of beer on cows.

are you really that thick

[quote][p][bold]R.S.Peters[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote:
Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?[/p][/quote]Yes, but millions of Muslims don't want free speech.
Iraq's Shia Muslims primarily wanted to substitute Sunni power with Shia power. Freedom of speech in Iraq is a foreign concept. Imposing democracy of such Muslim states is like imposing the consumption of beer on cows.[/p][/quote]are you really that thickcornishkev

R.S.Peters wrote…

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

Yes, but millions of Muslims don't want free speech.

Iraq's Shia Muslims primarily wanted to substitute Sunni power with Shia power. Freedom of speech in Iraq is a foreign concept. Imposing democracy of such Muslim states is like imposing the consumption of beer on cows.

are you really that thick

Score: 0

cornishkev
11:46am Sat 17 May 14

R.S.Peters wrote…

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

Yes, but millions of Muslims don't want free speech.

Iraq's Shia Muslims primarily wanted to substitute Sunni power with Shia power. Freedom of speech in Iraq is a foreign concept. Imposing democracy of such Muslim states is like imposing the consumption of beer on cows.

are you really that thick

[quote][p][bold]R.S.Peters[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote:
Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?[/p][/quote]Yes, but millions of Muslims don't want free speech.
Iraq's Shia Muslims primarily wanted to substitute Sunni power with Shia power. Freedom of speech in Iraq is a foreign concept. Imposing democracy of such Muslim states is like imposing the consumption of beer on cows.[/p][/quote]are you really that thickcornishkev

R.S.Peters wrote…

Norwegian Saint wrote…

Didn't Britain go to war in Iraq to allow their people free speech?

Yes, but millions of Muslims don't want free speech.

Iraq's Shia Muslims primarily wanted to substitute Sunni power with Shia power. Freedom of speech in Iraq is a foreign concept. Imposing democracy of such Muslim states is like imposing the consumption of beer on cows.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here